Unnamed: 0
int64 0
1.42k
| context
stringlengths 2.88k
70.8k
| document_id
int64 185
2.68k
| question
stringlengths 11
194
| answers
dict | id
int64 225
5.32k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
500 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | What percentage of HCWs comprised of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea? | {
"answer_start": [
50413
],
"text": [
"16 %"
]
} | 4,369 |
501 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | How has most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics been performed? | {
"answer_start": [
51231
],
"text": [
"using high throughput or \"deep\" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction"
]
} | 4,370 |
502 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | What does Clade A contain? | {
"answer_start": [
52035
],
"text": [
"only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes"
]
} | 4,372 |
503 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | What does clade B comprise? | {
"answer_start": [
52108
],
"text": [
"the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far"
]
} | 4,373 |
504 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | How many clades have become apparent in genome of MERS-COV from humans and DCs? | {
"answer_start": [
58320
],
"text": [
"has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA"
]
} | 4,371 |
505 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | Which city has had has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA ? | {
"answer_start": [
58271
],
"text": [
"Riyadh"
]
} | 4,374 |
506 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | Which city harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants | {
"answer_start": [
58270
],
"text": [
" Riyadh"
]
} | 4,375 |
507 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | How has the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission occurred? | {
"answer_start": [
66077
],
"text": [
"from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact "
]
} | 4,376 |
508 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | How were the transmission circumstances created? | {
"answer_start": [
66173
],
"text": [
"by poor infection control in health care settings"
]
} | 4,377 |
509 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | What percentage of humans have died among all humans reported to be infected? | {
"answer_start": [
67310
],
"text": [
" nearly 40 %"
]
} | 4,378 |
510 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | What would aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio? | {
"answer_start": [
67480
],
"text": [
"Global alignment of case definitions"
]
} | 4,379 |
511 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | How does MARS-COV differ from SARS-COV? | {
"answer_start": [
68137
],
"text": [
"MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.\n"
]
} | 4,380 |
512 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | Is there any evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern? | {
"answer_start": [
69043
],
"text": [
"There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern"
]
} | 4,381 |
513 | MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687373/
SHA: f6fcf1a99cbd073c5821d1c4ffa3f2c6daf8ae29
Authors: Mackay, Ian M.; Arden, Katherine E.
Date: 2015-12-22
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5
License: cc-by
Abstract: The first known cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), associated with infection by a novel coronavirus (CoV), occurred in 2012 in Jordan but were reported retrospectively. The case first to be publicly reported was from Jeddah, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Since then, MERS-CoV sequences have been found in a bat and in many dromedary camels (DC). MERS-CoV is enzootic in DC across the Arabian Peninsula and in parts of Africa, causing mild upper respiratory tract illness in its camel reservoir and sporadic, but relatively rare human infections. Precisely how virus transmits to humans remains unknown but close and lengthy exposure appears to be a requirement. The KSA is the focal point of MERS, with the majority of human cases. In humans, MERS is mostly known as a lower respiratory tract (LRT) disease involving fever, cough, breathing difficulties and pneumonia that may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure and death in 20 % to 40 % of those infected. However, MERS-CoV has also been detected in mild and influenza-like illnesses and in those with no signs or symptoms. Older males most obviously suffer severe disease and MERS patients often have comorbidities. Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), another sometimes- fatal zoonotic coronavirus disease that has since disappeared, MERS progresses more rapidly to respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (it also has an affinity for growth in kidney cells under laboratory conditions), is more frequently reported in patients with underlying disease and is more often fatal. Most human cases of MERS have been linked to lapses in infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare settings, with approximately 20 % of all virus detections reported among healthcare workers (HCWs) and higher exposures in those with occupations that bring them into close contact with camels. Sero-surveys have found widespread evidence of past infection in adult camels and limited past exposure among humans. Sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics have been available almost from the start of the emergence of MERS. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the past three years, understanding of the interplay between camel, environment, and human remains limited. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Text: An email from Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki, an Egyptian virologist working at the Dr Soliman Fakeeh Hospital in Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) announced the first culture of a new coronavirus to the world. The email was published on the website of the professional emerging diseases (ProMED) network on 20 th September 2012 [1] (Fig. 1) and described the first reported case, a 60 year old man from Bisha in the KSA. This information led to the rapid discovery of a second case of the virus, this time in an ill patient in the United Kingdom, who had been transferred from Qatar for care [2] . The new virus was initially called novel coronavirus (nCoV) and subsequentlty entitled the Middle East respiratoy syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). As of 2 nd of September 2015, there have been 1,493 detections of viral RNA or virus-specific antibodies across 26 countries (Additional file 1: Figure S1 ) confirmed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with over a third of the positive people dying (at least 527, 35 %) [3] .
Since that first report, a slow discovery process over the following two to three years revealed a virus that had infected over 90 % of adult dromedary camels (DC; Camelus dromedarius) in the KSA [4] , also DCs across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of Africa that are a source of DC imports for the KSA [5] . To date, MERS-CoV has not been detected in DCs tested in zoos or herds from other parts of the world [6] [7] [8] [9] . Occasionally, virus is transmitted from infected DCs to exposed humans. Subsequent transmission to other humans requires relatively close and prolonged exposure [10] .
The first viral isolate was patented and concerns were raised that this would restrict access to both the virus and to viral diagnostics [11, 12] . However, sensitive, validated reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR)-based diagnostics were quickly described and virus was made freely available subject to routine biosafety considerations [13] . Subsequent epidemiology and research has identified the cell receptor as exopeptidase dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4; also called CD26); that MERS-CoV has a broad tropism, replicating better in some cells lines and eliciting a more proinflammatory response than SARS-CoV; is widespread in DCs; has the potential to infect other animals and that MERS kills its human host more often than SARS did (20-40 % versus 9 % for SARS [14] ) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .
In humans, overt disease was given the name Middle East respiratory syndrome, with the acronym MERS. From intermittent animal-to-human spill-over events, the MERS-CoV spreads sporadically among people, causing more severe disease among older adults, especially males, with pre-existing diseases. The spread of MERS-CoV among humans has often been associated with outbreaks in hospitals, with around 20 % of all cases to date involving healthcare workers (HCWs).
Although DCs appear to suffer the equivalent of a 'common cold' from MERS-CoV infection, in humans, the virus can be a more serious and opportunistic pathogen associated with the death of up to 40 % of reported cases. It has yet to be established whether infections thought to have been acquired from an animal source produce a more severe outcome than those spread between humans [20] . Studies have established that the mean incubation period for MERS is five to six days, ranging from two to 16 days, with 13 to 14 days between when illness begins in one person and subsequently spreads to another [21] [22] [23] [24] . Among those with progressive illness, the median time to death is 11 to 13 days, ranging from five to 27 days [23, 24] . Fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may form a prodrome, after which symptoms decline, only to be followed by a more severe systemic and respiratory syndrome [25, 26] .
The first WHO case definition [27] defined probable cases of MERS based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement. It also included roles for contact with a probable or confirmed case or for travel or residence within the Arabian Peninsula. If strictly adhered to, only the severe syndrome would be subject to laboratory testing, which was the paradigm early on [21] . From July 2013, the revised WHO case definition included the importance of seeking out and understanding the role of asymptomatic cases and from June 2014, the WHO definition more clearly stated that a confirmed case included any person whose sample was RT-PCR positive for MERS-CoV, or who produced a seroconversion, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. [28] [29] [30] Apart from the WHO and the KSA Ministry of Health reports, asymptomatic or subclinical cases of MERS-CoV infection were documented in the scientific literature although not always as often as occurred early on [31, 32] . The KSA definition of a case became more strict on 13 th May 2014, relying on the presence of both clinical features and laboratory confirmation [33] . Testing of asymptomatic people was recommended against from December 2014 [34] , reinforced by a case definition released by the KSA Ministry of Health in June 2015 [35] . The KSA has been the source of 79 % of human cases. Severe MERS is notable for its impact among older men with comorbid diseases including diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis and various lung, renal and cardiac conditions [36] [37] [38] . Interestingly in June 2015, an outbreak in South Korea followed a similar distribution [39, 40] . Among laboratory confirmed cases, fever, cough and upper respiratory tract (URT) signs and symptoms usually occur first, followed within a week by progressive LRT distress and lymphopaenia [37] . Patients often present to a hospital with pneumonia, or worse, and secondary bacterial infections have been reported [37, 41] . Disease can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan system failure [37] . MERS has reportedly killed approximately 35 % of all reported cases, 42 % of cases in the KSA, yet only 19 % of cases in South Korea, where mortality ranged from 7 % among younger age groups to 40 % among those aged 60 years and above [42] ; all may be inflated values with asymptomatic or mild infections sometimes not sought or not reported [34] . General supportive care is key to managing severe cases [43] . Children under the age of 14 years are rarely reported to be positive for MERS-CoV, comprising only 1.1 % (n = 16) of total reported cases. Between 1 st September 2012 and 2 nd December 2013, a study described the then tally of paediatric cases in the KSA, which stood at 11 (two to 16 years of age; median 13 years); nine were asymptomatic (72 %) and one infant died [44] . In Amman, Jordan, 1,005 samples from hospitalized children under the age of two years with fever and/or respiratory signs and symptoms were tested but none were positive for MERS-CoV RNA, despite being collected at a similar time to the first known outbreak of MERS-CoV in the neighbouring town of Al-Zarqa [45] . A second trimester stillbirth occurred in a pregnant woman during an acute respiratory illness and while not RT-rtPCR positive, the mother did subsequently develop antibodies to MERS-CoV, suggestive of recent infection [46] . Her exposure history to a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive relative and an antibody-reactive husband, her incubation period and her symptom history met the WHO criteria for being a probable MERS-CoV case [46] .
Diagnostic methods were published within days of the ProMED email announcing the first MERS case [47] , including several now gold standard in-house RT-rtPCR assays (Fig. 2 ) as well as virus culture in Vero and LLC-MK2 cells [18, 47, 48] . A colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) epithelial cell line has since been recommended for isolation of infections MERS-CoV [49] . We previously [18] .). Open reading frames are indicated as yellow rectangles bracketed by terminal untranslated regions (UTR; grey rectangles). FS-frame-shift. Predicted regions encompassing recombination break-points are indicated by orange pills. Created using Geneious v8.1 [211] and annotated using Adobe Illustrator. Beneath this is a schematic depicting the location of RT-PCR primers (blue arrows indicate direction) and oligoprobes (green rectangles) used in the earliest RT-rtPCR screening assays and conventional, semi-nested (three primers) RT-PCR confirmatory sequencing assays [47, 48] . Publication order is noted by first [27 th September 2012; red] and second [6 th December 2012; orange] coloured rectangles; both from Corman et al. [47, 48] Those assays recommended by the WHO are highlighted underneath by yellow dots [53] . The NSeq reverse primer has consistently contained one sequence mismatch with some MERS-CoV variants. An altered version of that from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] reviewed the broad tropism of MERS-CoV [5] . However, as is well described, cell culture is a slow, specialised and insensitive method [50] while PCR-based techniques are the preferred method for MERS-CoV detection.
The first open reading frames (ORF 1a and 1b; Fig. 2 ) have become a key diagnostic and taxonomic target for CoV species identification. With less than 80 % identity between the amino acid sequence of MERS ORF 1ab and betacoronavirus relatives, Tylonycteris bat HKU4 and Pipistrellus bat HKU5, it can be concluded that it is a novel and distinct virus. MERS-CoV is predicted to encode ten open reading frames with 5' and 3' untranslated regions [51] . The structural proteins include the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M) and nucleocapsid (N) [52] . The products of ORF1a and ORF1b are predicted to encode nonstructural proteins.
The majority of specimen testing to date has employed validated RT-rtPCR assays shown to be sensitive and specific [47, 48, 53] . The RealStar® kit uses these WHOrecommended assays [54] . The target sequences of these screening assays have not changed among genomes examined until at least mid-2015 (IMM observation). Other RT-rtPCR assays have been developed and validated for use as laboratory-based diagnostic tools [55] [56] [57] . Additionally, loop-mediated [58, 59] or recombinase polymerase [60] isothermal assays have been designed for field deployment.
The detection of MERS-CoV antigen has not been common to date but the combination of short turnaround time from test to result, high throughput and identification of viral proteins makes this an attractive option. Detection of viral proteins rather than viral RNA indicates the likely presence of infectious virus. The first rapid immunochromatographic tool described could detect recombinant MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein from DC nasal swabs with 94 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity compared to RT-rtPCR [61] . A different approach used a monoclonal antibody-based capture ELISA targeting the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid protein with a sensitivity of 10 3 TCID 50 and 100 % specificity [62] .
Demonstration of a seroconversion to a MERS-CoV infection meets the current WHO definition of a case so optimized and thoroughly validated sero-assays employed alongside good clinical histories are useful to both identify prior MERS-CoV infection and help support transmission studies. Because serology testing is, by its nature, retrospective, it is usual to detect a viral footprint, in the form of antibodies, in the absence of any signs or symptoms of disease and often in the absence of any viral RNA [63] .
Strategic, widespread sero-surveys of humans using samples collected after 2012 are infrequent. Much of the Arabian Peninsula and all of the Horn of Africa lack baseline data describing the proportion of the community who may have been infected by a MERS-CoV. However, sero-surveys have had widespread use in elucidating the role of DCs as a transmission source for MERS-CoV. Because of the identity shared between DC and human MERS-CoV (see Molecular epidemiology: using genomes to understand outbreaks), serological assays for DC sero-surveys should be transferrable to human screening with minimal re-configuration. Also, no diagnostically relevant variation in neutralization activity have been found from among a range of circulating tested MERS-CoV isolates and sera, so whole virus or specific protein-based sero-assays should perform equivalently in detecting serological responses to the single MERS-CoV serotype [49] . The development of robust serological assays requires reliable panels of wellcharacterized animal or human sera, including those positive for antibodies specific to MERS-CoV, as well as to likely sources of cross-reaction [64] . Obtaining these materials was problematic and slowed the development and commercialization of antibody detection assays for human testing [64] . A number of commercial ELISA kits, immunofluorescent assays (IFA) kits, recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies have been released [31, [65] [66] [67] [68] . Initially, conventional IFAs were used for human sero-surveys. These relied on MERS-CoV-infected cell culture as an antigen source, detecting the presence of human anti-MERS-CoV IgG, IgM or neutralizing antibodies in human samples [18, 48, 69] . No sign of MERS-CoV antibodies was found among 2,400 sera from patients visiting Hospital in Jeddah, from 2010 through 2012, prior to the description of MERS-CoV [18] . Nor did IFA methods detect any sign of prior MERS-CoV infection among a small sample of 130 healthy blood donors from another Hospital in Jeddah (collected between Jan and Dec 2012) [70] . Of 226 slaughterhouse workers, only eight (3.5 %) were positive by IFA, and those sera could not be confirmed by virus neutralization (NT) test. The study indicated that HCoV-HKU1 was a likely source of crossreactive antigen in the whole virus IFA [70] . Whole virus MERS-CoV IFA also suffered from some cross-reactivity with convalescent SARS patient sera and this could not be resolved by an NT test which was also cross-reactive [71] . IFA using recombinant proteins instead of whole-virus IFA, has been shown to be a more specific tool [31] . Since asymptomatic zoonoses have been posited [72] , an absence of antibodies to MERS-CoV among some humans who have regular and close contact with camels may reflect the rarity of actively infected animals at butcheries, a limited transmission risk associated with slaughtering DCs [70] , a pre-existing cross-protective immune status or some other factor(s) resulting in a low risk of disease and concurrent seroconversion developing after exposure in this group. IFA using recombinant proteins instead.
Some sero-assays have bypassed the risks of working with infectious virus by creating transfected cells expressing recombinant portions of the MERS-CoV nucleocapsid and spike proteins [48, 73] , or using a recombinant lentivirus expressing MERS-CoV spike protein and luciferase [74, 75] . A pseudo particle neutralization (ppNT) assay has seen widespread used in animal studies and was at least as sensitive as the traditional microneutralization (MNT) test. [10, 74, [76] [77] [78] ] Studies using small sample numbers and ppNT found no evidence of MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody in sera from 158 children with LRT infections between May 2010 and May 2011, 110 sera from 19 to 52 year old male blood donors and 300 selfidentified animal workers from the Jazan Region of the KSA during 2012 [79, 80] . Similarly, a study of four herdsmen in contact with an infected DC herd in Al-Ahsa, eight people who had intermittent contact with the herd, 30 veterinary surgeons and support staff who were not exposed to the herd, three unprotected abattoir workers in Al-Ahsa and 146 controls who were not exposed to DCs in any professional role, found none with serological evidence of past MERS-CoV infection using the ppNT assay [10] . A delay in the neutralizing antibody response to MERS-CoV infection was associated with increased disease severity in South Korea cases with most responses detectable by week three of illness while others, even though disease was severe, did not respond for four or more weeks [81] . The implications for our ability to detect any response in mild or asymptomatic cases was not explored but may be a signifcant factor in understanding exposure in the wider community.
A Jordanian outbreak of acute LRT disease in a hospital in 2012 was retrospectively found to be associated with MERS-CoV infection, initially using RT-rtPCR, but subsequently, and on a larger scale, through positivity by ELISA and IFA or MNT test. [46, 82, 83] This outbreak predated the first case of MERS in the KSA. The ELISA used a recombinant nucleocapsid protein from the group 2 betacoronavirus bat-CoV HKU5 to identify antibodies against the equivalent crossreactive MERS-CoV protein [71] . It was validated using 545 sera collected from people with prior HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, HRV, HMPV or influenza A(H1N1) infections but was reportedly less specific than the recombinant IFA discussed above. It was still considered an applicable tool for screening large sample numbers [82] . A protein microarray expressing the S1 protein subunit has also been validated and widely used for DC testing [5, 84] . Detection of MERS-CoV infection using ELISA or S1 subunit protein microarray [84] is usually followed by confirmatory IFA and/ or a plaque-reduction neutralization (PRNT) [69, 70, 85] or MNT test. [74, 85, 86] This confirmatory process aims toensure the antibodies detected are able to specifically neutralize the intended virus and are not more broadly reactive to other coronaviruses found in DCs (bovine CoV, BCoV) or humans (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1, SARS-CoV). In the largest study of human sera, a tiered diagnostic process assigned both recombinant IFA and recombinant ELISA positive sera to 'stage 1' seropositivity. A stage 2 seropositive result additionally required a suitably titred PRNT result [87] . The study found 15 sera collected in 2012 to 2013 from 10,009 (0.2 %) people in 13 KSA provinces contained MERS-CoV antibodies, but significantly higher proportions in occurred in camel shepherds (two of 87; 2.3 %) and slaughterhouse workers (five of 140; 3.6 %) [87] . Contemporary surveys are needed.
MERS-CoV does not appear to be easily transmitted from DCs to humans, or perhaps it is [72] , but generally does not trigger a detectable immune response if only mild disease or asymptomatic infection results. Serology assays are in need of further validation in this area so care is required when moving newly developed diagnostic serology algorithms from a research setting to one that informs public health decisions. This was reinforced when a false positive US case, purported to have been infected after a handshake and two face-to-face meetings, did not withstand further confirmatory analysis using a more specific, NT assay and was subsequently retracted [88, 89] .
The WHO recommends sampling from the LRT for MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR testing, especially when sample collection is delayed by a week or more after onset of symptoms. [53] LRT samples are also best for attempting isolation of infectious virus, although the success of culture is reduced when disease persists [49] . Recommended sample types include bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), tracheal/tracheobronchial aspirate, pleural fluid and sputum [53, 90] . Fresh samples yield better diagnostic results than refrigerated material [69] and if delays in testing of ≥72 h are likely, samples (except for blood) should be frozen at −70°C [90] . If available, lung biopsy or autopsy tissues can also be tested [53] . The URT is a less invasive and more convenient sampling site however, and an oropharyngeal and throat swab or a nasopharyngeal aspirate/wash are recommended when URT sampling is to be conducted [90] . Paired sera, collected two to three weeks apart are preferable for serological testing while a single sample is suggested to be sufficient if collected two weeks after onset of disease or a single serum collected during the first 10-12 days if conducting RT-rtPCR [53, 90] . Human urine and stool have been found to contain MERS-CoV RNA 12 to 26 days after symptom onset [25, 69, 91] and are listed as samples that should be considered [53, 90] . In two cases that arrived in the Netherlands, urine was RT-rtPCR negative but faeces was weakly positive and sera were RT-rtPCR positive for five days or more [25] . The finding of MERS-CoV viral RNA in serum provides an avenue for retrospective PCR-based studies if respiratory samples are unavailable [83] . RNAaemia may also correlate with disease severity; signs of virus were cleared from the serum of a recovered patient, yet lingered until the death of another [92] .
Clinically suspected MERS cases may return negative results by RT-rtPCR. Data have shown one or more negative URT samples may be contradicted by further URT sampling or the use of LRT samples, which is preferred [2, 43, 93] . Higher viral loads occur in the LRT compared to the URT. [22, 69, 88, 94] This fits with the observation that the majority of disease symptoms are reported to manifest as systemic and LRT disease [21] . However, on occasion, even LRT specimens from MERS cases may initially be negative, only to later become positive by RT-PCR [95] . This may be due to poor sampling when a cough is absent or non-productive or because the viral load is low [95] . Despite this both the largest human MERS-CoV studies [32, [96] [97] [98] and smaller ones [22, 25, 99] , use samples from the URT. It is then noteworthy that one study reported an association between higher loads in the URT and worse clinical outcome including intensive care and death [94] . At writing, no human data exist to define whether the virus replicates solely or preferentially in the LRT or URT, or replicates in other human tissues in vivo although MERS-CoV RNA has been detected from both the URT and LRT in a macaque monkey model [100] .The distribution of DPP4 in the human upper airways is also not well described.
Individual human case studies report long periods of viral shedding, sometimes intermittently and not necessarily linked to the presence of disease symptoms. [25, 69, 99, 101] In one instance, a HCW shed viral RNA for 42 days in the absence of disease [99] . It is an area of high priority to better understand whether such cases are able to infect others. Over three quarters of MERS cases shed viral RNA in their LRT specimens (tracheal aspirates and sputum) for at least 30 days, while only 30 % of contacts were still shedding RNA in their URT specimens [91, 102] .
In the only study to examine the effect of sample type on molecular analysis, 64 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA; an URT sample), 30 tracheal aspirates, 13 sputa and three BAL were examined. The tracheal aspirates and BAL returned the highest viral load values followed by NPA and sputum. Unsurprisingly, higher viral loads generally paralleled whole genome sequencing and culture success and, in NPA testing, were significantly correlated with severe disease and death [49, 94, 103] . This study demonstrated the importance of LRT sampling for whole genome sequencing.
When tested, samples positive for MERS-CoV are often negative for other pathogens [2, 25, 93, 104] . However, many studies make no mention of additional testing for endemic human respiratory viruses [21, 23, 73, 105] . When viruses are sought, they have included human herpesvirus (HHV), rhinoviruses (HRV), enteroviruses (EV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenzavirus types 1, 2 and 3 (PIVs),influenzaviruses (IFVs), endemic HCoVs, adenoviruses (AdVs) metapneumovirus (MPV) and influenza A\H1N1 virus; co-detections with MERS-CoV have been found on occasion [2, 22, 37, 69, 97] . Bacterial testing is sometimes included (for example, for Legionella and Pneumococcus) but the impact of bacterial co-presence is also unclear [22, [104] [105] [106] . Further testing of the LRT sample from the first MERS case used IFA to screen for some viruses (negative for IFV, PIVs, RSV and AdVs) and RT-PCR for others (negative for AdV, EVs, MPV and HHVs) [18] . RT-PCR also detected MERS-CoV. The WHO strongly recommends testing for other respiratory pathogens [53] but with this recommendation often discounted, there are limited data to address the occurrence and impact of co-infections or alternative viral diagnoses among both MERS cases and their contacts. Little is known of other causes of MERS-like pneumonia in the KSA or of the general burden of disease due to the known classical respiratory viruses.
Testing of adult pilgrims performing the Hajj in 2012 to 2014 has not detected any MERS-CoV. In 2012, nasal swabs from 154 pilgrims collected prior to leaving for or departing from the KSA were tested [47] . In 2013, testing was significantly scaled up with 5,235 nasopharyngeal swabs from 3,210 incoming pilgrims and 2,025 swabs from outgoing pilgrims tested [98] . It should be noted that most pilgrims arrived from MERS-free countries. A further 114 swabs were taken from pilgrims with influenza-like illness [96, 107] . In earlier Hajj gatherings, it was found that influenza viruses circulated widely, whilst other viruses, often rhinoviruses, circulated more selectively, interpreted as indicating their importation along with foreign pilgrims. [107] [108] [109] Over time, increased influenza vaccination has been credited for a fall in the prevalence of influenza like illnesses among Hajj pilgrims. [110] A LRT sample is often not collected for these studies [98, 107, 109] , so false negative findings are a possibility although little is known about the initial site of MERS-CoV infection and replication; it may have been assumed it was the LRT because disease was first noticed there but the URT may be the site of the earliest replication.
In Jeddah between March and July 2014 (hereafter called the Jeddah-2014 outbreak; Fig. 3 ), there was a rapid increase in MERS cases, accompanied by intense screening; approximately 5,000 samples from in and around the region were tested in a month yielding around 140 MERS-CoV detections (~3 % prevalence) [111] . Among 5,065 individuals sampled and tested across the KSA between October 2012 and September 2013,108 (2.1 %) detections were made in a hospital-centric population which included hospitalized cases (n = 2,908; 57.4 %), their families (n = 462; 9.1 %) and associated HCWs (n = 1,695; 33.5 %) [32] . Among the detections, 19 (17.8 %) were HCWs and 10 (9.3 %) were family contacts [32] .
The 2-3 % prevalence of active MERS-CoV infections is not dissimilar to the hospital-based prevalence of other human CoVs. [112] However, the proportion of deaths among those infected with MERS-CoV is much higher than that known for the HCoVs NL63, HKU1, 229E or OC43 in other countries, and even above that for SARS-CoV; it is not a virus that could reasonably be described as a "storm in a teacup". It is the low transmission rate that has prevented worldwide spread, despite many "opportunities".
Very early in the MERS outbreak, some animals were highly regarded as either the reservoir or intermediate host(s) of MERS-CoV with three of the first five cases having contact with DCs [73, 113, 114] . Today, animal MERS-CoV infections must be reported to the world organization for animal health as an emerging disease [115] . A summary of the first MERS cases reported by the WHO defined animal contact with humans as being direct and within 10 days prior to symptom onset [20] . This definition made no specific allowance for acquisition from DCs through a droplet-based route, which is very likely route for acquisition of a virus that initially and predominantly causes respiratory disease [23] . Camels are known to produce high levels of MERS-CoV RNA in their URT and lungs [116] . Providing support for a droplet transmission route and perhaps indicating the presence of RNA in smaller, drier droplet nuclei, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in a high volume air sample collected from a barn housing an infected DC [117] . The precise source from which humans acquire MERS-CoV remains poorly studied but it seems likely that animal and human behavioural factors may play roles (Fig. 3) [118] . These factors may prove important for human cases who do not describe any DC contact [119] nor any contact with a confirmed case. Whether the WHO definition of animal contact is sufficient to identify exposure to this respiratory virus remains unclear. Wording focuses on consumption of DC products but does not specifically ascribe risk to a droplet route for acquisition of MERS-CoV from DC [120] . Some MERS patients are listed in WHO disease notices as being in proximity to DCs or farms, but the individuals have not described coming into contact with the animals. No alternative path for acquiring infection is reported in many of these instances. What constitutes a definition of "contact" during these interviews has been defined for one study [72] . Despite this lack of clarity, the WHO consider that evidence linking MERS-CoV transmission between DCs to humans is irrefutable (Fig. 4) [120] .
The possibility that bats were an animal host of MERS-CoV was initially widely discussed because of the existing diversity of coronaviruses known to reside among them [121] [122] [123] [124] . Conclusive evidence supporting bats as a source for human infections by MERS-CoV has yet to be found, but bats do appear to host ancestral representatives [53, 125] . However, these are not variants of the same virus nor always within the same phylogenetic lineage as MERS-CoV; they are each a genetically distinct virus. Bat-to-human infection by MERS-CoV is a purely speculative event. The only piece of MERS-CoV-specific evidence pointing to bats originates from amplification of a 190 nt fragment of the RNAdependent RNA polymerase gene of the MERS-CoV genome, identified in a faecal pellet from an insectivorous Emballonuridae bat, Taphozous perforatus found in Bisha, the KSA [121] . While very short, the sequence of the fragment defined it as a diagnostic discovery. Subsequently a link to DCs was reported [85] and that link has matured into a verified association [38, 126] (Fig. 4) .
(See figure on previous page.) Fig. 3 Monthly detections of MERS-CoV (blue bars) and of cases who died (red bars) with some dates of interest marked for 2012 to 4 th September 2015. An approximation of when DC calving season [128] and when recently born DCs are weaned is indicated. Spring (green) and summer (orange) in the Arabian Peninsula are also shaded. Note the left-hand y-axis scale for 2014 and 2015 which is greater than for 2012/13. Sources of these public data include the WHO, Ministries of Health and FluTrackers [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] . Modified and reprinted from Mackay IM, Arden KE. Middle East respiratory syndrome: An emerging coronavirus infection tracked by the crowd. Virus Res 2015 Vol 202:60-88 with permission from Elsevier [5] DCs, which make up 95 % of all camels, have a central presence in the Arabian Peninsula where human-DC contact ranges from little to close [119] . Contact may be commonplace and could occur in variety of ways (Fig. 4a) . There are several large well-attended festivals, races, sales and parades which feature DCs and DCs are also kept and bred close to populated areas in the KSA [127, 128] . DC milk and meat are widely consumed and the older DC is an animal of ritual significance after the Hajj pilgrimage [129] . However, MERS-CoV infection frequency is reportedly much lower than is the widespread and frequent habit of eating, drinking and preparing DC products. Daily ingestion of fresh unpasteurized DC milk is common among the desert Bedouin and many others in the KSA. DC urine is also consumed or used for supposed health benefits. Despite camel butchery being a local occupation, neither butchers nor other at-risk groups are identifiable among MERS cases; this may simply be a reporting issue rather than an unexplainable absence of MERS. A small case-control study published in 2015 identified direct DC contact, and not ingestion of products, to be associated with onset of MERS [38] .
The first sero-survey of livestock living in the Middle East region was conducted during 2012-2013 [85] . DCs were sampled from a mostly Canary Island-born herd and from Omani DCs (originally imported from the Horn of Africa) [85] . A neutralising antibody assay found only 10 % of strongly seropositive Canary Island [5] . b Camel-to-human infections appear to be infrequent, while human-to-human spread of infection is regularly facilitated by poor IPC in healthcare settings where transmission is amplified, accounting for the bulk of cases. There are human MERS cases that do not fall into either category of source and it is unclear if these acquired infection through some entirely separate route, or from cases that escaped diagnosis. c Hypothetical ways in which subclinical (when infection may not meet a previously defined clinical threshold of signs and/or symptoms) or asymptomatic (no obvious signs or measured, noticed or recalled symptoms of illness) MERS-CoV infection may be implicated in transmission DC sera could neutralise MERS-CoV while all Omani DC sera had high levels of specific MERS-CoV neutralizing antibody [85] . This indicated that DCs had in the past been infected by MERS-CoV, or a very similar virus.
Since this study, a host of peer-reviewed reports have looked at both DCs and other animals, and the possibility that they may host MERS-CoV infection. Seropositive DCs have been found throughout the Arabian Peninsula including Oman, the KSA, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait as well as Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia in Africa and the Canary Islands [85, [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] . Other animals tested include sheep, cows, pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, birds, water buffalo, goats, Bactrian camels, llamas and guanaco (south American camelids) but none had detectable neutralising antibody against MERS-CoV [4, 74, 78, 85, 86, 135, 136] . No virology or serology studies of human samples from areas in Africa where there are camels with a history of MERS-CoV have been reported to date. However,an absence of unexplained pneumonia that may be attributable to MERS-CoV infection may not signal the absence of virus among humans in each country but simply reflect a lack of expensive epidemiology studies conducted by resource-poor countries. It is thus unclear whether MERS-CoV, or an antigenically related CoV, is an unrecognized pathogen in these regions, perhaps circulating for even longer than it has been known in the Arabian Peninsula [133] .
MERS-CoV RNA has also been detected in DC samples, and recovery of infectious virus has also been achieved from DC samples [4, 77, 117, 132, [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] . From some of these, full or majority length genomes of MERS-CoV have been sequenced [77, 137, 138] . DC versions of MERS-CoV were found to be as similar to each other, as were variants detected from different humans over time and across distance.
Antibody screening assays have also detected crossreactive antibodies in sera. These were identified as such by screening sera against similar viruses, for example BCoV or HCoV-OC43 (as an antigenic facsimile for BCoV). It is possible that other MERS-CoV-like viruses also reside within DCs, but this does not detract from the definitive finding of MERS-CoV genetic sequences in both DCs and humans [117, 142, 143] .
Screening studies have shown that juvenile DCs are more often positive for virus or viral RNA while older DCs are more likely to be seropositive and RNA or virus negative [76, 77, 144] . In adult DCs, MERS-CoV RNA has been detected among animals with pre-existing antibody, suggesting re-infection is possible [77, 144] . Viral loads among positive DCs can be very high [4, 76, 77, 139, 144] and DCs have been found positive both when ill with URT respiratory signs [77, 117, 142, 145] or when apparently healthy [137] . These findings indicate DCs host natural MERS-CoV infections. Furthermore, stored DC sera have revealed signs of MERS-CoV in DCs which date back over three decades (the earliest collected in 1983) [4, 133, 135] . Older sera have not been tested and so precisely how long DCs have been afflicted by MERS-CoV, whether the virus is enzootic among them, introduced to them decades or centuries ago from bats in Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, or they are the subject of regular but short-lived viral incursions from an as yet unknown host, cannot be answered.
Researchers sought to determine a direction for infection; were DCs transmitting virus to humans or were humans infecting DCs? At a Qatari site, a farm owner and his employee became ill in mid-October 2013 and tested positive for MERS-CoV RNA in a sputum and throat swab sample, respectively. RT-rtPCRs found MERS-CoV RNA in 11 of 14 positive DC nasal swabs at the farm; six (43 %) positive by two or more assays [138] . The results indicated a recent outbreak had occurred in this herd; the first indication of MERS-CoV RNA found within DCs with a temporal association to human infections. Three positive DC samples were confirmed by sequencing a 358 nt portion of the spike gene; these sequences were identical to each other, again with close homology to other human and DC MERS-CoV sequences [138] . The DCs and human contacts yielded ORF1a and ORF4b sequences differing by only a single nucleotide each, clustering closely with the Hafr-Al-Batin_1_2013 variant [138] . Subsequent case studies found evidence of a concurrent human and DC infection and the direction of that infection was inferred to be from the ill DCs and to their human owners [117, 142, 146] . Partial genome sequences indicated that a human and a MERS-CoV RT-rtPCR positive DC had been infected by a variant of the same virus, harbouring the same distinct pattern of nucleotide polymorphisms. [142] All nine DC in the owner's herd, serially sampled, reacted in a recombinant S1 antigen ELISA, with the two animals that had been RT-rtPCR positive showing a small, verifiable rise in antibody titre [142] . A rise in titre theoretically begins 10 to 21 days after DC infection [142] . The authors suggested that the rise in titre in DC sera which occurred alongside a declining RNA load, while the patient was actively ill and hospitalized, indicated that the DCs were infected first followed by the owner [117, 142] . BCoV antibodies were also present, and rising in one of the two RT-rtPCR positive animals but no animal's antibodies could neutralise BCoV infection [142] .
Camel calving season occurs in the winter months (between late October and late February; Fig. 3 ) and this may be a time when there is increased risk to humans of spill-over due to new infections among naïve DC populations [128] . What role maternal camel antibody might play in delaying infection of calves remains unknown [128, 142] . Juvenile DCs appear to host active infection more often than adult DCs and thus the sacrificial slaughter of DCs, which must be five years of age or older (termed a thane), may not be accompanied by significant risk of exposure to infection. In contrast to earlier results, slaughterhouse workers who kill both younger and older DCs, may be an occupational group with significantly higher incidence of seropositivity to MERS-CoV when animals have active MERS-CoV infections [129, 139, [147] [148] [149] . Expanded virological investigations of African DCs may lead to more seropositive animals and geographic areas in which humans may be at risk. It is possible that there are areas where humans already harbour MERS-CoV infections that have not been identified because of an absence of laboratory surveillance. Virological investigations of bats may lead to findings of ancestral viruses and viral 'missing links' and identifying any other animal sources of zoonotic spread is important to inform options for reducing human exposures [56, 76] .
Infectious MERS-CoV added to DC, goat or cow milk and stored at 4°C could be recovered at least 72 h later and, if stored at 22°C, recovery was possible for up to 48 h [150] . MERS-CoV titre decreased somewhat when recovered from milk at 22°C but pasteurization completely ablated MERS-CoV infectivity [150] . In a subsequent study, MERS-CoV RNA was identified in the milk, nasal secretion and faeces of DCs from Qatar [151] .
A single study has examined the ability of MERS-CoV to survive in the environment [150] . Plastic or steel surfaces were inoculated with 10 6 TCID 50 of MERS-CoV at different temperature and relative humidity (RH) and virus recovery was attempted in cell culture. At high ambient temperature (30°C) and low RH (30 %) MERS-CoV remained viable for 24 h [150] . By comparison, a well known and efficently transmitted respiratory virus, influenza A virus, could not be recovered in culture beyond four hours under any conditions [150] . Aerosol experiments found MERS-CoV viability only decreased 7 % at low RH at 20°C. In comparison, influenza A virus decreased by 95 % [150] . MERS-CoV survival is inferior to that previously demonstrated for SARS-CoV [152] . For context, pathogenic bacteria can remain viable and airborne for 45 min in a coughed aerosol and can spread 4 m. MERS-CoV's ability to remain viable over long time periods gives it the capacity to thoroughly contaminate a room's surfaces when occupied by an infected and symptomatic patient [153] . Whether MERS-CoV can remain adrift and infectious for extended periods (truly airborne) remains unknown. Such findings expand our understanding of the possibilities for droplets to transmit respiratory viruses in many settings, including hospital waiting rooms, emergency departments, treatment rooms, open intensive care facilities and private patient rooms. The nature and quality of air exchange, circulation and filtration are important variables in risk measurement and reduction as is the use of negative pressure rooms to contain known cases. Droplet spread between humans is considered the mechanism of human-to-human transmission and the need for droplet precautions was emphasized after the Al-Ahsa hospital, the KSA and the South Korean outbreaks [21, 23, 154, 155] . By extrapolation, aerosol-generating events involving DCs (urination, defecation, and preparation and consumption of DC products) should be factored into risk measurement and reduction efforts and messaged using appropriate context. The provision of evidence supporting the best formulation of personal protective equipment to be worn by HCWs who receive, manage or conduct procedures on infectious cases remains a priority.
MERS-CoV was found and characterized because of its apparent association with severe, and therefore more obvious, illness in humans; we were the canaries in the coal mine. Sero-assays and prospective cohort studies have yet to determine the extent to which milder or asymptomatic cases contribute to MERS-CoV transmission chains. However, transmission of MERS-CoV is defined as sporadic (not sustained), intra-familial, often healthcare associated, inefficient and requiring close and prolonged contact [22, 31, 63, 93, 97, 102, 156] In a household study, 14 of 280 (5 %) contacts of 26 MERS-CoV positive index patients were RNA or antibody positive; the rate of general transmission, even in outbreaks is around 3 % [31] . It seems that the majority of human cases of MERS-CoV, even when numbers appear to increase suddenly, do not readily transmit to more than one other human so to date, the localized epidemic of MERS-CoV has not been self-sustaining [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] . That is to say, the basic reproduction number (R 0 ) -the average number of infections caused by one infected individual in a fully susceptible populationhas been close to one throughout various clusters and outbreaks. If R 0 was greater than 1, a sustained increase in case numbers would be expected. Some R o calculations may be affected by incomplete case contact tracing, limited community testing and how a case is defined. That MERS has had a constant presence in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012 is due to ongoing, sporadic spill-over events from DCs amplified by poorly controlled hospital outbreaks.
The first known MERS human-to-human transmission event was one characterized by acute LRT disease in a healthcare setting in Jordan. In stark contrast, a sero-survey of HCW who were sometimes in close and prolonged contact with the first, fatal MERS-CoV case in 2012 [162] , found none of the HCW had seroconverted four months later, despite an absence of eye protection and variable compliance with required PPE standards [162] .
Early on in the MERS story, samples for testing were mostly collected from patients with severe illness and not those with milder acute respiratory tract infections. Contacts of confirmed MERS cases were often observed for clinical illness, but not tested. These omissions may have confounded our understanding of MERS-CoV transmission and biased early data towards higher numbers of seriously ill and hospitalized patients, inflating the apparent proportion of fatal cases. Case-control studies were not a focus. As testing paradigms changed and contacts were increasingly tested, more asymptomatic and mild infections were recognized [163] .
A rise in the cases termed asymptomatic (which enlarge the denominator for calculations of the proportion of fatal cases, defined in [164] ) resulted in a drop in the proportion of fatal cases during the Jeddah-2014 outbreak. Historically, such rises are consistent with changing definitions and laboratory responses and clinical management of a newly discovered virus infection that was first noted only among the severely ill. Upon follow-up, over three-quarters of such MERS-CoV RNA positive people did recall having one or more symptoms at the time, despite being reported as asymptomatic [165] raising some question over the reliability of other reported data.
The proportion of fatal MERS cases within the KSA compared to outside the KSA, as well as the age, and sex distribution change in different ways when comparing MERS outbreaks. Approximately 43 % of MERS cases (549 of 1277) in the KSA were fatal betwen 2012 and December 2015 while 21 % (72 of 330) died among those occurring outside of the KSA. The total number of male cases always outnumber females and the proportion of male deaths is always greater than the proportion of females who die. However the proportion of male deaths from total males with MERS is a similar figure to that for females. In the KSA, there is a greater proportion of younger males among cases and deaths than were observed from the 2015 South Korean or the Jeddah-2014 outbreaks (Additional file 2: Figure S2 ). Why these aspects have differed may be due to differences in the time to presentation and diagnosis, the nature and quality of supportive care, the way a person became infected (habits, exposure to a human or zoonotic source, viral load, route of infection) or the extent to which different populations are burdened by underlying diseases [40] .
As a group, HCWs comprised 16 % of MERS cases in the KSA and South Korea. It is apparent that the weekly proportion of infected HCWs increases alongside each steep rise in overall detections (Fig. 5) . In May 2013, the WHO published guidelines for IPC during care of probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection in a healthcare setting [166] . This is explainable because to date, each case rise has been intimately associated with healthcare-facility related outbreaks [118] . These rises in MERS-CoV detections can decrease the average age during each event because HCWs are usually younger than inpatients with MERS. Healthcare facilities have been a regular target for suggested improvements aimed at improving infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures [115, 118] .
Most of the analysis of MERS-CoV genetics has been performed using high throughput or "deep" sequencing methods for complete genome deduction [167] [168] [169] . MERS-CoV was the first subject of such widespread use of deep sequencing to study an emerging viral outbreak with global reach. The technique can produce genomic [207] [208] [209] . Earlier and subsequent versions of this chart are maintained on a personal blog [210] length coverage in a single experiment with highly repetitious measurement of each nucleotide position [52, 140] . Despite assays having been published early on, subgenomic sequencing, once the mainstay of viral outbreak studies, has less often been published during MERS-CoV characterization [48] . As more genomes from both humans and DCs have been characterized, two clades have become apparent; A and B (Fig. 6) . Clade A contains only human-derived MERS-CoV genomes from Jordan, while Clade B comprises the majority of human and camel genomes deduced thus far [168] .
Two studies during 2015, one looking at Jeddah-2014 MERS-CoV variants and another looking at a variant exported from South Korea to China, have now identified signs of genetic recombination among MERS-CoV variants. While human and camel whole genome sequences have retained >99 % identity with each other, members of genetically distinct lineages can and do swap genetic material when suitable conditions and coinfections co-occur [170] [171] [172] . Shared identity implies that the major source for human acquisition is the DC, rather than another animal, although more testing of other animal species is needed to confirm that conclusion. Over a month, a DC virus sequenced on different occasions did not change at all indicating a degree of genomic stability in its host, supporting that DCs are the natural, rather than intermediate, host for the MERS-CoV we know today [77] . To date, recombination has been localised to breakpoints near the boundary between ORF1a and ORF1b regions, within the spike gene [170] and in the ORF1b region (Fig. 2) [172] . It is not unexpected that recombination should occur since it is well known among other CoVs [124] and because the majority of MERS-CoV whole genomes collected from samples spanning three years (2012-2015) and from humans, camels and different countries have shown close genetic identity to each other, with just enough subtle variation to support outbreak investigations so long as whole genome sequencing is applied [52, 77, 135, 138, 168, [173] [174] [175] .
Changes in genome sequence may herald alterations to virus transmissibility, replication, persistence, lethality or response to future drugs. If we have prior knowledge of the impact of genetic changes because of thorough characterization studies, we can closely Fig. 6 The genetic relationship between MERS-CoV nucleotide sequences (downloaded from GenBank using the listed accession numbers and from virological.org [212] ). This neighbour joining tree was created in MEGA v6 using an alignment of human and DCderived MERS-CoV sequences (Geneious v8.1 [211] ). Clades are indicated next to dark (Clade A) or pale (Clade B) blue vertical bars. Camel icons denote genomes from DCs. Healthcare or community outbreaks are boxed and labelled using previously described schemes [212, 213] monitor the genomic regions and better understand any changes in transmission or disease patterns as they occur. Genetic mutations noted during the largest of human outbreaks, Jeddah-2014, did not impart any major replicative or immunomodulatory changes when compared to earlier viral variants in vitro [156, 176] . However, we understand very little of the phenotypic outcomes that result from subtle genetic change in MERS-CoV genomes. To date no clinical relevance or obvious in vivo changes to viral replication, shedding or transmission has been reported or attributed to mutations or to new recombinant viruses [156] . But vigilance and larger, more contemporary and in vivo studies are needed.
Genome sequence located to a distinct clade were identified from an Egyptian DC that was probably imported from Sudan. This does not fit into either of the current clades [125, 168, 177] . A virus sequenced from a Neoromicia capensis bat was more closely related to MERS-CoV than other large bat-derived sequences had been to that point, but the genome of a variant of a MERS-CoV has yet to be discovered and deduced from any bat [125] .
Analyses of MERS-CoV genomes have shown that most single nucleotide differences among variants were located in the last third of the genome (Fig. 2) , which encodes the spike protein and accessory proteins [168] . At least nine MERS-CoV genomes contained amino acid substitutions in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and codons 158 (N-terminal region), 460 (RBD), 1020 (in heptad repeat 1), 1202 and 1208 bear investigation as markers of adaptive change [140, 169] . The spike protein had not changed in the recombinant MERS-CoV genome identified in China in 2015 but was reported to have varied at a higher rate than that for complete MERS-CoV genomes, among South Korean variants [172, 178] . This highlights that subgenomic regions may not always contain enough genetic diversity to prove useful for differentiating viral variants. Despite this, one assay amplifying a 615 nucleotide fragment of the spike S2 domain gene for Sanger sequencing agreed with the results generated by the sequencing of a some full genomes and was useful to define additional sequence groupings [177] .
Genomic sequence can also be used to define the geographic boundaries of a cluster or outbreak and monitor its progress, based on the similarity of the variants found among infected humans and animals when occurring together, or between different sites and times (Fig. 6 ) [169] . This approach was employed when defining the geographically constrained MERS hospital outbreak in Al-Ahsa, which occurred between 1 st April and 23 rd May 2013, as well as clusters in Buraidah and a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin, the KSA. Genomic sequencing identified that approximately 12 MERS-CoV detections from a community outbreak in Hafr Al-Batin between June and August 2013 may have been triggered by an index case becoming infected through DC contact [175] . Sequencing MERS-CoV genomes from the 2013 Al-Ahsa hospital outbreak indicated that multiple viral variants contributed to the cases but that most were similar enough to each other to be consistent with human-tohuman transmission. Molecular epidemiology has revealed otherwise hidden links in transmission chains encompassing a period of up to five months [179] . However, most outbreaks have not continued for longer than two to three months and so opportunities for the virus to adapt further to humans through co-infection and sustained serial passage have been rare [169] . In Riyadh-2014, genetic evidence supported the likelihood of multiple external introductions of virus, implicating a range of healthcare facilities in an event that otherwise looked contiguous [23, 168, 179] . Riyadh is a nexus for camel and human travel and has had more MERS cases than any other region of the KSA to date but also harbours a wide range of MERS-CoV variants [128, 167, 179] . However the South Korean outbreak originated from a single infected person, resulting in three to four generations of cases [180, 181] . Studies of this apparently recombinant viral variant did not find an increased evolutionary rate and no sign of virus adaptation thus the outbreak seems to have been driven by circumstance rather than circumstance together with mutation [181] .
For many MERS cases detected outside the Arabian Peninsula, extensive contact tracing has been performed and the results described in detail. Contact tracing is essential to contain the emergence and transmission of a new virus and today it is supported by molecular epidemiology. Although it is an expensive and time consuming process, contact tracing can identify potential new infections and through active or passive monitoring, react more rapidly if disease does develop. Results of contact tracing to date have found that onward transmission among humans is an infrequent event. For example, there were 83 contacts, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, of a case treated in Germany who travelled from the UAE but no sign of virus or antibody were found in any of them [73] . The very first MERS case had made contact with 56 HCWs and 48 others, but none developed any indication of infection [162] . In a study of 123 contacts of a case treated in France, only seven matched the definition for a possible case and were tested; one who had shared a 20 m 2 hospital room while in a bed 1.5 m away from the index case for a prolonged period was positive [26] . None of the contacts of the first two MERS cases imported into the USA in 2014 contained any MERS-CoV footprint [182] and none of the 131 contacts of two travellers returning to the Netherlands developed MERS-CoV antibodies or tested RNA positive [25, 183] . Analyses of public data reveal many likely instances of nosocomial acquisition of infection in the Arabian Peninsula and these data may be accompanied by some details noting contact with a known case or facility. One example identified the likely role of a patient with a subclinical infection, present in a hospital during their admission for other reasons, as the likeliest index case triggering a family cluster [93] . Contact tracing was a significant factor in the termination of a 2015 outbreak involving multiple South Korean hospitals [184] . Such studies demonstrate the necessity of finding and understanding a role for mild and asymptomatic cases, together with restricting close contact or prolonged exposure of infected people to others, especially older family members and friends with underlying disease (Fig. 4c) .
The hospital-associated outbreak in Jeddah in 2014 was the largest and most rapid accumulation of MERS-CoV detections to date. The greatest number of MERS-CoV detections of any month on record occurred in Jeddah in April. The outbreak was mostly (>60 % of cases) associated with human-to-human spread within hospital environments and resulted from a lack of, or breakdown in, infection prevention and control [37, 185, 186] . A rise in fatalities followed the rapid increase in case numbers.
In 2015 two large outbreaks occurred. South Korea was the site of the first large scale outbreak outside the Arabian Peninsula and produced the first cases in both South Korea and China, occurring between May and July 2015. This was closely followed by a distinct outbreak in Ar Riyad province in the KSA which appeared to come under control in early November.
After staying in Bahrain for two weeks, a 68 year old male (68 M) travelled home to South Korea via Qatar, arriving free of symptoms on the 4 th May 2015 [187] . He developed fever, myalgia and a cough nearly a week later (11 th ). He visited a clinic as an outpatient between the 12 th and 15 th of May and was admitted to Hospital A on the 15 th [188] . He was discharged from Hospital A on the 17 th then visited and was admitted to the emergency department of Hospital B on the 18 th . During this second stay, a sputum sample was taken and tested positive for MERS-CoV on the 20 th [187, 188] , triggering transfer to the designated isolation treatment facility. Over a period of 10 days, the index case was seen at three different hospitals, demonstrating a key feature of "hospital shopping" that shaped the South Korean outbreak. Approximately 34 people were infected during this time [187] . In total 186 cases were generated in this outbreak, all linked through a single transmission chain to 68 M; 37 cases died [189] . In South Korea, the national health insurance system provides for relatively low cost medical care, defraying some costs by making family members responsible for a portion of the ministration of the sick, resulting in them sometimes staying for long periods in the rooms that often have more than four beds in them [24] . Other factors thought to have enabled this outbreak included unfamiliarity of local clinicians with MERS, ease with which the public can visit and be treated by tertiary hospitals, the custom of visiting sick friends and relatives in hospitals, the hierarchical nature of Korean society, crowded emergency rooms, poor IPC measures, a lack of negative pressure isolation rooms and poor inter-hospital communication of patient disease histories [24, [190] [191] [192] . All of the reported transmission occurred across three or four generations and apart from one unknown source, were all hospital-acquired [24, 120, 181, [193] [194] [195] . Few clinical details about these cases have been reported to date and detail on transmission and contact tracing is minimal. The hospitals involved were initially not identified, governmental guidance and actions produced confusing messages and there was very limited communication at all early on which resulted in unnecessary concern, distrust and a distinct economic impact [191, [196] [197] [198] . Early in the outbreak, a infected traveller, the son of an identified case in South Korea, passed through Hong Kong on his way to China where he was located, isolated and cared for in China [91, 199, 200] . No contacts became ill. The outbreak was brought under control in late July/ early August [201] after improved IPC measures were employed, strong contact tracing monitoring and quarantine, expanded laboratory testing, hospitals were better secured, specialized personnel were dispatched to manage cases and international cooperation increased [202, 203] . A review of public data showed that, as for MERS in the KSA, older age and the presence of underlying disease were significantly associated with a fatal outcome in South Korea. [40] Even though R 0 is <1, super-spreading events facilitated by circumstances created in healthcare settings and characterized by cluster sizes over 150, such as this one, are not unexpected from MERS-CoV infection [204] . The dynamic of an outbreak depends on the R 0 and an individual's viral shedding patterns, contact type and frequency, hospital procedures and population structure and density [204] .
In the region of Ar Riyad, including the capital city of Riyadh, a hospital based cluster began, within a single hospital, from late June 2015 [205] . By mid-September there had been approximately170 cases reported but the outbreak appeared to been brought under control in November.
It became apparent early on that MERS-CoV spread relatively ineffectively from human-to-human. Despite ongoing and possibly seasonal introduction of virus to the human population via infected DCs and perhaps other animals yet to be identified, the vast majority of MERS-CoV transmission has occurred from infected to uninfected humans in close and prolonged contact through circumstances created by poor infection control in health care settings. This opportunistic virus has had its greatest impact on those with underlying diseases and such vulnerable people, sometimes suffering multiple comorbidities, have been most often associated with hospitals, creating a perfect storm of exposure, transmission and mortality. It remains unclear if this group are uniquely affected by MERS-CoV or if other respiratory virus infections, including those from HCoVs, produce a similarly serious impact. In South Korea, a single imported case created an outbreak of 185 cases and 36 deaths that had a disproportionate impact on economic performance, community behaviour and trust in government and the health care system. Household human-to human transmission occurs but is also limited. Educational programs will be essential tools for combatting the spread of MERS-CoV both within urban and regional communities and for the health care setting.
Vigilance remains important for containment since MERS-CoV is a virus with a genetic makeup that has been observed for only three years and is not stable. Among all humans reported to be infected, nearly 40 % have died. Continued laboratory testing, sequencing, analysis, timely data sharing and clear communication are essential for such vigilance to be effective. Global alignment of case definitions would further aid accurate calculation of a case fatality ratio by including subclinical case numbers. Whole genome sequencing has been used extensively to study MERS-CoV travel and variation and although it remains a tool for experts, it appears to be the best tool for the job.
MERS and SARS have some clinical similarities but they also diverge significantly [206] . Defining characteristics include the higher PFC among MERS cases (above 50 % in 2013 and currently at 30-40 %; well above the 9 % of SARS) and the higher association between fatal MERS and older males with underlying comorbidities. For the viruses, MERS-CoV has a broader tropism, grows more rapidly in vitro, more rapidly induces cytopathogenic change, triggers distinct transcriptional responses, makes use of a different receptor, induces a more proinflammatory state and has a delayed innate antiviral response compared to SARS-CoV.
There appears to be a 2-3 % prevalence of MERS-CoV in the KSA with a 5 % chance of secondary transmission within the household. There is an increased risk of infection through certain occupations at certain times and a much greater chance for spread to other humans during circumstances created by humans, which drives more effective transmission than any R 0 would predict on face value. Nonetheless, despite multiple mass gatherings that have afforded the virus many millions of opportunities to spread, there have remarkably been no reported outbreaks of MERS or MERS-CoV during or immediately after these events. There is no evidence that MERS-CoV is a virus of pandemic concern. Nonetheless, hospital settings continue to describe MERS cases and outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula. As long as we facilitate the spread of MERS-CoV among our most vulnerable populations, the world must remain on alert for cases which may be exported more frequently when a host country with infected camel reservoirs is experiencing human clusters or outbreaks.
The MERS-CoV appears to be an enzootic virus infecting the DC URT with evidence of recent genetic recombination. It may once have had its origins among bats, but evidence is lacking and the relevance of that to today's ongoing epidemic is academic. Thanks to quick action, the sensitive and rapid molecular diagnostic tools required to achieve rapid and sensitive detection goal have been in place and made widely available since the virus was reported in 2012. RT-PCR testing of LRT samples remains the gold standard for MERS-CoV confirmation. Serological tools continue to emerge but they are in need of further validation using samples from mild and asymptomatic infections and a densely sampled cohort study to follow contacts of new cases may address this need. Similarly, the important question of whether those who do shed MERS-CoV RNA for extended periods are infectious while appearing well, continues to go unanswered. It is even unclear just how many 'asymptomatic' infections have been described and reported correctly which in turn raises questions about the reliability of other clinical data collection to date. While the basic virology of MERS-CoV has advanced over the course of the past three years, understanding what is happening in, and the interplay between, camel, environment and human is still in its infancy.
Additional file 1: Figure S1 . The | 1,741 | How did the first WHO case definition define probable cases of MERS? | {
"answer_start": [
6732
],
"text": [
"based on the presence of febrile illness, cough and requirement for hospitalization with suspicion of lower respiratory tract (LRT) involvement."
]
} | 4,215 |
514 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | What is the main cause of death in the neonatal period of calves? | {
"answer_start": [
1971
],
"text": [
"Calf septicemia"
]
} | 2,129 |
515 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | Where was hepcidin first discovered? | {
"answer_start": [
2382
],
"text": [
"human urine"
]
} | 2,131 |
516 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | What is hepcidin? | {
"answer_start": [
2302
],
"text": [
"low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone"
]
} | 2,130 |
517 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | What organ produces hepcidin? | {
"answer_start": [
2422
],
"text": [
"liver"
]
} | 2,132 |
518 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | What stimulates the release of hepcidin? | {
"answer_start": [
2455
],
"text": [
"inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations"
]
} | 2,133 |
519 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | What element does hepcidin play a roles in regulating during metabolism? | {
"answer_start": [
2569
],
"text": [
"Fe"
]
} | 2,134 |
520 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | Is hepcidin toxic? | {
"answer_start": [
2856
],
"text": [
"potentially toxic"
]
} | 2,135 |
521 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | Why is iron critical to bacteria? | {
"answer_start": [
2972
],
"text": [
"bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation"
]
} | 2,136 |
522 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | How does hepcidin work in the duodenum? | {
"answer_start": [
3425
],
"text": [
"control of excessive Fe absorption"
]
} | 2,137 |
523 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | How does hepcidin affect macrophages? | {
"answer_start": [
3372
],
"text": [
"regulation of Fe release"
]
} | 2,138 |
524 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | What leads to oxidative stress in the body? | {
"answer_start": [
3802
],
"text": [
"production of ROS"
]
} | 2,139 |
525 | Relationship between hepcidin and oxidant/antioxidant status in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146304/
SHA: efcd7d171bb51acf2ef0a631901900497957a3be
Authors: Erkilic, E. E.; Erdogan, H. M.; Ogun, M.; Kirmizigul, A. H.; Gokce, E.; Kuru, M.; Kukurt, A.
Date: 2016-11-14
DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1238-1241
License: cc-by
Abstract: AIM: This study has been conducted for the purpose of determining serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment and the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study material consisted of 15 calves of different ages and sexes brought to the Training, Research and Application Center at the Kafkas University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine with suspected neonatal septicemia. 8.5 mL of blood was drawn from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes before and after treatment for one-off biochemical analyses and centrifuged. After this, the serum was separated. Hepcidin, TAS, TOS, and Fe levels in the serum were measured. RESULTS: While pre-treatment hepcidin levels were 58.42±3.46 ng/mL, post-treatment levels were 46.87±2.98 ng/mL (p<0.05). Pre-treatment Fe levels were 60.13±7.27 µg/dl, while post-treatment levels were 83.1±8.09 µg/dl (p<0.05). The changes in the TAS and TOS levels were also found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In light of the fact that hepcidin plays a role function in the regulation of Fe as well as the fact that Fe is a significant nutritional source for many microorganisms, it was concluded that hepcidin may play a significant role in nutritional immunity and the pathogenesis of diseases.
Text: Neonatal calf septicemia causes high morbidity and mortality and is one of the leading and most significant difficulties in raising cattle. Calf septicemia is the main cause of death in the neonatal period [1] . Its etiology involves bacteria (commonly Escherichia coli), viruses (rota and coronavirus), parasites, and other factors. As the disease progresses quickly and is lethal, diagnosis and treatment should be initiated as quickly as possible [2] .
Hepcidin is a low molecular weight, antimicrobial peptide hormone and was first discovered in human urine [3] . It is produced by the liver as a firstline response to inflammatory reactions and high Fe concentrations [4, 5] . Hepcidin plays a fundamental role in the regulation of Fe metabolism [6] , which is a part of foundational cellular functions and thus of vital importance. On the other hand, by participating in redox reactions leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROSs), Fe also causes oxidative stress. Therefore, Fe has been regarded as a potentially toxic element to cells [7] . Fe also plays an important role in pathogenesis of bacterial infections as bacteria utilize Fe for survival, growth and proliferation; therefore, it is of paramount importance to control the Fe metabolism [6] . It is well known that the abundance of Fe suppresses defense system leading host vulnerable to infections. There is a significant relationship between Hepcidin, Fe metabolism, inflammation, and the immune system. The fact that hepcidin plays an active role in the regulation of Fe release from macrophages and in the control of excessive Fe absorption from the duodenum is well documented [6] . Hepcidin is a part of the natural defense mechanism, thus it limits the amount of Fe that can be utilized by pathogens [8] . In inflammatory conditions, hypoferremia is an important first-line protective mechanism in response to infections [9] . Fe also participates in redox reactions, causing the production of ROS, and thus leading to oxidative stress [7] . Free radicals play a significant role in the pathogenesis of many diseases [10] . Newborns are subject to oxidative stress during birth. It is also reported that in livestock diseases, especially enteritis and pneumonia, antioxidant capacity is efficacious [11] .
This study was designed to determine the clinical significance of hepcidin in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia by evaluating serum hepcidin, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and Fe levels in calves suspected of neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
This study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee (MAKU-HADYEK-Submission: 2014/77).
The study consisted of 15 calves with suspected neonatal septicemia aged between 1 and 10 days old admitted to the Teaching Hospital of Veterinary Medicine. Suspected septicemia was diagnosed based on clinical (diarrhea, weakness in or absence of sucking reflex, the calf being in a supine position on the ground or being unable to stand, severe dehydration, abnormal rectal temperature [hypo-or hyperthermia], mucosal hyperemia, and full sclera) and hematological (increase in white blood cell [WBC] count) examinations; the animals were suspected to have septicemia [12, 13] . The animals were given standard treatment (antibiotic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin C, fluid therapy, and intestinal astringent). For determination of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS, Fe levels, and hematological parameters; blood samples were taken before and after treatment in all cases. 8.5 mL of blood was taken from the jugular vein of each animal into coagulant tubes for biochemical analysis, and 3 mL blood was taken into ETDA tubes for hematological analysis. Samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, and the serum was harvested and kept at −20°C until the analysis. Serum hepcidin (Mybiosource ® ), TAS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ), and TOS (Rel Assay Diagnostics ® ) were determined using commercial ELISA kits, and Fe value was measured spectrophotometrically. Hematological (WBC, lymphocyte [LYM], red blood cells [RBC], mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and hematocrit [HCT]) analysis was performed on blood counter (VG-MS4e ® , Melet Schloesıng, France).
The results were evaluated using the t-test in the SPSS ® (SPSS 20, USA) statistical package program to determine the differences between values before and after treatment.
Calves with suspected septicemia exhibited clinical signs of loss of appetite, fatigue, indifference to surroundings, reduced/absence of sucking reflex, cool extremities, inability to stand, diarrhea, eye sinking into their sockets, and hyperemia in the conjunctiva. The average body temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rates of the animals were 37.18±0.13°C, 104±4.33/min, and 28.86±0.75/min pre-treatment; and 38.54±0.1°C, 107.53±2.20/min and 26.40±0.36/min post-treatment, respectively.
The changes in hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in the calves with suspected septicemia before and after treatment are given in Table- 1. After treatment, serum hepcidin and TOS levels were significantly lower than before treatment in calves. On contrary, serum TAS and Fe levels were significantly higher than before treatment (Table-1 ).
The treatment of calves resulted in significant changes in the hematological parameters that were examined except for RBC. The WBC count, LYM count, MCV and HCT significantly changed after treatment when compared to values obtained before treatment (Table-2 ).
This study aimed to determine the clinical importance or use of hepcidin by comparing the values of serum hepcidin, TAS, TOS and Fe levels in calves with suspected neonatal septicemia before and after treatment.
Clinicians rely on clinical and laboratory examinations of patients to form a working diagnosis, so hematological and serum biochemical parameters are usually used for this purpose [14] . The hematological parameters (WBC, HCT, LYM, and MCV) evaluated in this study were comparable with those reported by others in neonatal calves with diarrhea and suspected septicemia [15] [16] [17] . Treatment significantly corrected to normal values the hematological parameters that were examined with the exception of RBC. Pretreatment leukocyte count was high because of the inflammation that occurred in the organism, and that the HCT levels were high due to the dehydration that occurred due to diarrhea. Hepcidin is controlled by the presence of inflammation in the body, Fe storage, and erythropoietic activity in the bone marrow and plays a primary role in the homeostasis of Fe [4] . The increase in tissue and plasma Fe levels stimulates the synthesis of hepcidin and reduces Fe release and enteric Fe absorption from macrophages and hepatocytes [18] . Increased hepcidin concentrations during inflammation and infection reduce serum Fe levels by decreasing Fe release from macrophages and hepatocytes, and thus Fe required for microorganisms and tumor cells is restricted [19] .
Serum hepcidin levels in calves with suspected septicemia were significantly high before treatment when compared to after treatment; also Fe levels were lower before treatment when compared to after treatment in this study. This situation could be related to the interaction between hepcidin and Fe and also gives credence to the role of hepcidin in the hemostasis of Fe during inflammation and infection. As in our study, Fe levels are well known to decrease in diarrheic calves when compared to healthy calves [20, 21] . Although no study exists reporting hepcidin concentration in diseased calves, studies in human subjects show that cord blood hepcidin levels might be an important indicator in diagnosing early-onset of neonatal sepsis. The cord blood hepcidin levels of neonatal infants with sepsis varied between 118.1 and 8400 ng/mL and were significantly higher than the healthy infants [22] . A similar result was reported that hepcidin concentrations in neonatal infants with sepsis were significantly higher than in healthy infants [23] . These findings along with our results add credence to the idea that hepcidin-Fe interaction may play a role in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
The production of free oxygen species causes alterations in protein, lipid, and DNA during oxidative stress and leads to the development of lesions in the organs [24] . Free iron has toxic characteristics as it catalyses the production of ROSs [25] and thus causes oxidative stress [26] . The role of Fe in the development of oxidative stress may once more show the importance of hepcidin, as an important Fe regulator, with regard to enhancing antioxidant capacity through inhibiting utilization of Fe by the organism as well as the host cells.
The antioxidant and oxidative system are in a constant state of balance in the organism. Any event breaking up this balance in favor of the oxidative stress molecules will cause cell damage [27, 28] . The host cells initiate the antioxidant system in case of exposure to oxidative stress [27] . Kabu et al. [16] reported TOS and TAS values in neonatal calves with diarrhea as 13.47±0.81 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.51±0.02 mmol Trolox-equivalent/L, respectively, and treatment of these calves caused changes in these values of 11.21±0.26 μmol H 2 O 2 /L and 0.55±0.02 mmol Troloxequivalent/L, respectively. Studies also reported that parameters used for oxidative stress (malondialdehyde) were higher [29] and antioxidant parameters (superoxide dismutase [21] , TAS) were lower in diarrheic calves [29] . Similarly, in our study, TAS level was significantly lower and TOS level was significantly higher in diarrheic calves before treatment, and treatment caused corrections in these parameters. Decrease in TAS and increase in TOS levels demonstrated that oxidative stress was evident in the diseased calves in our study. Increased TOS and hepcidin levels before treatment are thought that associated with inflammation. After treatment increased TAS and decreased hepcidin levels support this opinion.
Hepcidin may play an important part in non-specific immunity and is a key molecule that plays a role in the pathogenesis of diseases by enhancing the development of antioxidant system. However, more detailed studies are needed on the role of hepcidin in the pathogenesis of septicemia.
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. EEE, HME and AHK: Designed the experimental procedures. EEE, EG and MK: Conducted the research work. EEE, AHK, MO and AK: Helped in laboratory analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | 1,560 | What parameter is used to measure antioxidant levels? | {
"answer_start": [
11390
],
"text": [
"superoxide dismutase"
]
} | 2,140 |
526 | Acute Hemorrhagic Encephalitis Responding to Combined Decompressive Craniectomy, Intravenous Immunoglobulin, and Corticosteroid Therapies: Association with Novel RANBP2 Variant
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857578/
SHA: ef6638accc1ef599ad1aafd47b3a86f2b904cc76
Authors: Alawadhi, Abdulla; Saint-Martin, Christine; Bhanji, Farhan; Srour, Myriam; Atkinson, Jeffrey; Sébire, Guillaume
Date: 2018-03-12
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00130
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) is considered as a rare form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis characterized by fulminant encephalopathy with hemorrhagic necrosis and most often fatal outcome. OBJECTIVE: To report the association with Ran Binding Protein (RANBP2) gene variant and the response to decompressive craniectomy and high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in life-threatening AHEM. DESIGN: Single case study. CASE REPORT: A 6-year-old girl known to have sickle cell disease (SCD) presented an acquired demyelinating syndrome (ADS) with diplopia due to sudden unilateral fourth nerve palsy. She received five pulses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day). Two weeks after steroid weaning, she developed right hemiplegia and coma. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a left frontal necrotico-hemorrhagic lesion and new multifocal areas of demyelination. She underwent decompressive craniotomy and evacuation of an ongoing left frontoparietal hemorrhage. Comprehensive investigations ruled out vascular and infectious process. The neurological deterioration stopped concomitantly with combined neurosurgical drainage of the hematoma, decompressive craniotomy, IVMP, and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). She developed during the following months Crohn disease and sclerosing cholangitis. After 2-year follow-up, there was no new neurological manifestation. The patient still suffered right hemiplegia and aphasia, but was able to walk. Cognitive/behavioral abilities significantly recovered. A heterozygous novel rare missense variant (c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu) was identified in RANBP2, a gene associated with acute necrotizing encephalopathy. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells. CONCLUSION: In any ADS occurring in the context of SCD and/or autoimmune condition, we recommend to slowly wean steroids and to closely monitor the patient after weaning to quickly treat any recurrence of neurological symptom with IVMP. This case report, in addition to others, stresses the likely efficacy of combined craniotomy, IVIG, and IVMP treatments in AHEM. RANBP2 mutations may sensitize the brain to inflammation and predispose to AHEM.
Text: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) or acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis is considered a rare and extremely severe form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). AHEM is characterized by an acute and rapidly progressive encephalopathy including hemorrhagic necrosis of the parenchyma of the central nervous system. It is usually fatal (1) (2) (3) . Many treatment options have been used including intravenous (IV) steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), and plasmapheresis (4) . There have been few reports of survival following early intervention with high-dose corticosteroid therapy and/or decompressive craniotomy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .
RANBP2, a nuclear pore protein, has numerous roles in the cell cycle. RANBP2 is associated with microtubules and mitochondria suggesting roles in intracellular protein trafficking or energy maintenance and homeostasis of neuronal cells. RANBP2 mutations have been reported in acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) which could present with coma, convulsions, and encephalopathy. The hallmark of ANE is multiple, symmetric brain lesions located in the thalami bilaterally, putamina, deep periventricular white matter, cerebellum, and brainstem. It could be triggered by a viral infection in previously healthy children (10) .
We report a new case of AHEM associated to a Ran Binding Protein (RANBP)-2 variant and responsive to combined craniectomy, intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP), and IVIG as inaugural manifestation of multisystemic autoimmunity in a girl with sickle cell disease (SCD).
A 6-year-old girl known for SCD treated on folic acid and hydroxyurea was admitted for new-onset diplopia [day 0 (D0): refers to the start of the diplopia] 6 weeks after respiratory tract infection due to rhinovirus. She was diagnosed with a fourth nerve palsy secondary to an acquired demyelinating syndrome. The initial brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed at D5 after onset of neurological symptom showed left midbrain and pontine edema with expansion of the brainstem, right caudate nucleus, and scattered supratentorial white matter foci of high T2/FLAIR signal (Figure 1 ). Brain MR angiography (MRA) showed a normal appearing circle of Willis. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained by lumber puncture was normal (WBC 1 cells/μl, RBC 0 cells/μl, glucose 2.9 mmol/L, protein 0.18 g/L, and absent oligoclonal bands). The infectious workup including blood bacterial culture, CSF bacterial and viral cultures, nasopharyngeal aspirate (tested for Influenza A, Influenza B, Parainfluenza 1-2-3, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus OC43, Metapneumovirus, Enterovirus, and Rhinovirus), and serologies for Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, HTLV I, HTLV II, HIV1, and Lyme disease were negative. Bartonella Henselae IgG was positive (1:1,280) reflecting a previously acquired common and self-limited infection in our area. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) were positive (1:160). B12 and folate levels were normal. Smooth muscle antibodies were negative. Anti-mitochondrial antibodies were positive. Sedimentation rate was 65 mm/h. She was treated with five doses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day) followed by 9 days of oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day). At discharge, her neurological exam was significant only for vertical diplopia.
She presented 1 month later with 5 days of upper respiratory tract infection symptoms, fever, headache, and a rapidly progressive right-hand weakness (D30) with normal alertness. She had normal blood pressure (120/81 mmHg). She was started on cefotaxime, vancomycin, and acyclovir. White cell count was 13.4 × 10 9 /L, hemoglobin was 7.8 g/L, and platelets were 239 × 10 9 /L. While in the MRI machine (D30) she deteriorated with vomiting and reduced level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale dropped from 15 to 8 over 30 min). Brain MRI showed a rapid progression over a few sequences of an active bleed involving both superficial and deep gray matter as well as subcortical white matter of the left hemisphere anterior quadrant. Brain MRA was normal (Figures 2A-F) . The patient was immediately brought out of the magnet and her physical exam demonstrated unequal dilated pupils. She received IV mannitol and hypertonic saline for the management of acute intracranial hypertension/ herniation and was taken for surgery. She underwent left frontotemporoparietal decompressive craniotomy, evacuation of left frontoparietal intracerebral hemorrhage, and insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD). Upon opening the skull, there was significant dural tension, and on opening the dura mater, there was a large amount of bleeding, in addition to brain swelling and necrosis. Estimated blood loss was 3.5 L. She received 8 units of packed red blood cells, 3 units of cryoprecipitate, 6 units of fresh frozen plasma, and 3 units of platelets. Coagulation profile showed international normalization ratio = 3.38, prothrombin time = 51.2 s, and partial thromboplastin time = 122 s. An intraventricular pressure monitor was inserted. She returned with stable vitals to PICU. At D31, the CT scan showed extensive multi-compartmental bleed involving the left frontoparietal lobes, the interhemispheric fissure, and the left hemispheric arachnoid spaces. New white matter lesions were detected in the left posterior parietal and occipital lobes and in the left caudate head. MRI at D33 showed interval worsening with disseminated gray and white matter non-hemorrhagic lesions in the right cerebral and both cerebellar hemispheres, bilateral deep gray nuclei, as well as new necrotic non-hemorrhagic lesions in the left hemisphere (Figures 2G-I) . She was started on IVMP (30 mg/kg/ day for 5 days) and IVIG (1 g/kg/day for 2 days). Repeat MRI at D9 showed no new parenchymal hemorrhage and partial resolution of the non-hemorrhagic lesions (Figure 3) . Prednisolone was tapered course over 6 weeks. At discharge (D71), she was able to say a few words and had better power of her right side. Brain MRI performed 3 months later showed complete resolution of the non-hemorrhagic non-necrotic lesions, mainly seen in the right cerebral hemisphere and the cerebellum.
Brain biopsy of the hematoma, some small vessels, cortex, and white matter showed necrotic area, reactive and non-specific findings which could be entirely explained by compressive changes adjacent to a hematoma. There was diffuse microglial activation and signs of early microinfarcts. Blood, CSF and urine culture, and PCR (HSV1/2) were negative for bacteria and for viruses. CSF obtained through craniotomy and EVD performed at D32 showed elevated proteins 2.56 g/L, glucose 3.6 mmol/L, white blood cells 9 cells/μL, and red blood cells 1,341 cells/μL. ANA and anti-DNA antibody were negative.
Anti-extractable nuclear antigens (SSA-RO, SSB-LA, smith, RNP) were negative. Serum autoimmune antibodies panel (NMO, NMDAR, AMPA I/II, GAB, MAG, VGCC, MOG, YO, HU, RI) were negative but GAD antibody was slightly positive, possibly due to the IVIG infusion. EBV showed no signs of recent infection.
After discharge, the patient was started on regular transfusion exchange. Six months later, the patient was diagnosed to have Crohn's disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Two years later, the patient still suffers right hemiparesis but is able to walk without support. She presents an expressive aphasia. Her intellectual abilities are average, or below the mean but in the normal range, except for the speed of information processing, verbal working memory, and some elaborated executive functions.
A gene panel ( Table 1 ) targeting inflammatory disorders and post-infectious necrotic encephalopathies found a heterozygous RANBP2 missense mutation (NM_006267.4, c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu). This mutation has not been previously reported in the HGMD database. This variant has been observed at a frequency of <0.01% across the entire Broad ExAC dataset of individuals without severe childhood onset disease (6/117,118 alleles). Analysis of amino acid conservation indicates that the wild-type amino acid Lys1665 is conserved in 59 of 60 mammals examined, including 12 of 12 primates, and in 25 of 34 nonmammalian vertebrates increasing the likelihood that a change at this position might not be tolerated. In silico tools predict that this variant is damaging (SIFT and Align GVGD).
Several differential diagnoses of acute encephalopathy in a patient with sickle cell anemia can be considered. An infectious encephalitis, including herpes encephalitis, was ruled out by blood and CSF bacterial and viral cultures and negative HSV I/ II PCR. Nasopharyngeal aspirate was negative for viruses. Some infections have been previously associated with necrotizing encephalitis such as Influenza A (11) . SCD patients are prone to ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes (12) . Primary hemorrhagic stroke is uncommon in pediatric SCD. Most cases were from adults and have been described in the context of previous ischemic stroke, aneurysms, low hemoglobin, acute chest syndrome, and hypertransfusions. Moreover, although hemorrhagic stroke has been described in SCD patients receiving transfusion or corticosteroids, it was in the context of elevated blood pressure which was not present in our case (13) . This was ruled out as the MRI findings were not consistent with a specific vascular territory and normal arterial and venous flows were shown on vascular imaging. Another differential is posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome which has been reported in SCD patients (13) (14) (15) (16) . However, it is unlikely in our case due to the severity of the brain injury and the absence of classic precipitating factors of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome such as high blood pressure. Macrophage activation syndrome could also lead to acute necrotic brain injury. However, it is associated to high ferritin and low triglycerides at the time of the encephalopathy, other multisystemic injuries, typical neuropathological findings, and recurrence over time, which were not noted in our patient (17) . Parvovirus B19 has been described to cause encephalopathy in sickle cell patients. It is associated with aplastic anemia. It caused punctate areas of hemorrhages in the basal ganglia, periventricular white matter, and mainly along the posterior parietal cortex. This was attributed to parvovirus B19-induced vasculitis (18) . In our patient, there was no sign of aplasia or any neuroradiological finding of parvovirus B19 infection. Finally, acute encephalitis has been observed in SCD patients in the context of arterial hypoxemia from fat embolism, pulmonary embolism, sudden anemia, or acute chest syndrome due to pneumonia (19) . This was ruled out as the patient did not have clinical or radiological signs of acute chest syndrome or embolism and there was no arterial hypoxemia.
Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis has been described in pediatric patients following ADEM or ADEM-like episodes (20, 21) . AHEM is the most plausible diagnosis in our patients based on the clinical and radiological presentation, the preceding ADEM-like episode, and the exclusion of other etiologies of acute encephalopathy. Other patients with AHEM have been described in the SCD context (7, 19) . Many treatment options have been used to treat AHEM; of these, IV steroids have been associated with survival following aggressive, high-dose corticosteroid therapy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (22) (23) (24) (25) .
Autosomal dominant mutations (with incomplete penetrance) in RANBP2 have been associated with susceptibility to infectioninduced necrotizing encephalopathy (26, 27) . Previously healthy patients with pathogenic mutations in RANBP2 can present acutely with encephalopathy and convulsions in the context of an infection, with brain imaging revealing involvement of the brainstem, thalami, putamina, cerebellum and external capsules, and claustrum (10) . Our patient has a similar presentation and imaging features as infection-induced necrotizing encephalopathy, including bilateral thalamic involvement. The rare heterozygous previously unreported variant we identified in RANBP2 affects a very conserved aminoacid and is predicted deleterious using in silico tools (a prediction tool performing a fast bioinformatics analysis which can predict the pathogenicity of a variant based on the change to an amino acid). It is possible that this variant is pathogenic and responsible for the clinical phenotype. There is an overlap between the diagnostic criteria of AHEM and those of acute hemorrhagic encephalopathy (25, 26) making possible that both entities might be part of the same pathophysiological continuum. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells (28) . Hence, RANBP2 dysfunction might make neuronal cells much vulnerable to energy failure and necrosis when exposed to inflammatory or other stresses, such as those implicated in AHEM.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of our institutional ethic committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants for the publication.
All authors participated in gathering the data, designing the article, and discussing and editing the manuscript.
aCKNoWleDgMeNts We thank Dr. S. Abish, Dr. N. Ahmed, and Mrs. C. Guiraut for their help. We are grateful to the Hoppenheim Fund from the Montreal Children Hospital Foundation.
The first author of this article received a scholarship from the Hoppenheim Fund, Montreal Children Hospital Foundation (2016). This work was supported by grants from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (grant number: G-14-0005756), and Foundation of Stars. | 1,561 | What is Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis? | {
"answer_start": [
546
],
"text": [
"a rare form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis"
]
} | 3,032 |
527 | Acute Hemorrhagic Encephalitis Responding to Combined Decompressive Craniectomy, Intravenous Immunoglobulin, and Corticosteroid Therapies: Association with Novel RANBP2 Variant
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857578/
SHA: ef6638accc1ef599ad1aafd47b3a86f2b904cc76
Authors: Alawadhi, Abdulla; Saint-Martin, Christine; Bhanji, Farhan; Srour, Myriam; Atkinson, Jeffrey; Sébire, Guillaume
Date: 2018-03-12
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00130
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) is considered as a rare form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis characterized by fulminant encephalopathy with hemorrhagic necrosis and most often fatal outcome. OBJECTIVE: To report the association with Ran Binding Protein (RANBP2) gene variant and the response to decompressive craniectomy and high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in life-threatening AHEM. DESIGN: Single case study. CASE REPORT: A 6-year-old girl known to have sickle cell disease (SCD) presented an acquired demyelinating syndrome (ADS) with diplopia due to sudden unilateral fourth nerve palsy. She received five pulses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day). Two weeks after steroid weaning, she developed right hemiplegia and coma. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a left frontal necrotico-hemorrhagic lesion and new multifocal areas of demyelination. She underwent decompressive craniotomy and evacuation of an ongoing left frontoparietal hemorrhage. Comprehensive investigations ruled out vascular and infectious process. The neurological deterioration stopped concomitantly with combined neurosurgical drainage of the hematoma, decompressive craniotomy, IVMP, and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). She developed during the following months Crohn disease and sclerosing cholangitis. After 2-year follow-up, there was no new neurological manifestation. The patient still suffered right hemiplegia and aphasia, but was able to walk. Cognitive/behavioral abilities significantly recovered. A heterozygous novel rare missense variant (c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu) was identified in RANBP2, a gene associated with acute necrotizing encephalopathy. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells. CONCLUSION: In any ADS occurring in the context of SCD and/or autoimmune condition, we recommend to slowly wean steroids and to closely monitor the patient after weaning to quickly treat any recurrence of neurological symptom with IVMP. This case report, in addition to others, stresses the likely efficacy of combined craniotomy, IVIG, and IVMP treatments in AHEM. RANBP2 mutations may sensitize the brain to inflammation and predispose to AHEM.
Text: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) or acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis is considered a rare and extremely severe form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). AHEM is characterized by an acute and rapidly progressive encephalopathy including hemorrhagic necrosis of the parenchyma of the central nervous system. It is usually fatal (1) (2) (3) . Many treatment options have been used including intravenous (IV) steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), and plasmapheresis (4) . There have been few reports of survival following early intervention with high-dose corticosteroid therapy and/or decompressive craniotomy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .
RANBP2, a nuclear pore protein, has numerous roles in the cell cycle. RANBP2 is associated with microtubules and mitochondria suggesting roles in intracellular protein trafficking or energy maintenance and homeostasis of neuronal cells. RANBP2 mutations have been reported in acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) which could present with coma, convulsions, and encephalopathy. The hallmark of ANE is multiple, symmetric brain lesions located in the thalami bilaterally, putamina, deep periventricular white matter, cerebellum, and brainstem. It could be triggered by a viral infection in previously healthy children (10) .
We report a new case of AHEM associated to a Ran Binding Protein (RANBP)-2 variant and responsive to combined craniectomy, intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP), and IVIG as inaugural manifestation of multisystemic autoimmunity in a girl with sickle cell disease (SCD).
A 6-year-old girl known for SCD treated on folic acid and hydroxyurea was admitted for new-onset diplopia [day 0 (D0): refers to the start of the diplopia] 6 weeks after respiratory tract infection due to rhinovirus. She was diagnosed with a fourth nerve palsy secondary to an acquired demyelinating syndrome. The initial brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed at D5 after onset of neurological symptom showed left midbrain and pontine edema with expansion of the brainstem, right caudate nucleus, and scattered supratentorial white matter foci of high T2/FLAIR signal (Figure 1 ). Brain MR angiography (MRA) showed a normal appearing circle of Willis. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained by lumber puncture was normal (WBC 1 cells/μl, RBC 0 cells/μl, glucose 2.9 mmol/L, protein 0.18 g/L, and absent oligoclonal bands). The infectious workup including blood bacterial culture, CSF bacterial and viral cultures, nasopharyngeal aspirate (tested for Influenza A, Influenza B, Parainfluenza 1-2-3, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus OC43, Metapneumovirus, Enterovirus, and Rhinovirus), and serologies for Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, HTLV I, HTLV II, HIV1, and Lyme disease were negative. Bartonella Henselae IgG was positive (1:1,280) reflecting a previously acquired common and self-limited infection in our area. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) were positive (1:160). B12 and folate levels were normal. Smooth muscle antibodies were negative. Anti-mitochondrial antibodies were positive. Sedimentation rate was 65 mm/h. She was treated with five doses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day) followed by 9 days of oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day). At discharge, her neurological exam was significant only for vertical diplopia.
She presented 1 month later with 5 days of upper respiratory tract infection symptoms, fever, headache, and a rapidly progressive right-hand weakness (D30) with normal alertness. She had normal blood pressure (120/81 mmHg). She was started on cefotaxime, vancomycin, and acyclovir. White cell count was 13.4 × 10 9 /L, hemoglobin was 7.8 g/L, and platelets were 239 × 10 9 /L. While in the MRI machine (D30) she deteriorated with vomiting and reduced level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale dropped from 15 to 8 over 30 min). Brain MRI showed a rapid progression over a few sequences of an active bleed involving both superficial and deep gray matter as well as subcortical white matter of the left hemisphere anterior quadrant. Brain MRA was normal (Figures 2A-F) . The patient was immediately brought out of the magnet and her physical exam demonstrated unequal dilated pupils. She received IV mannitol and hypertonic saline for the management of acute intracranial hypertension/ herniation and was taken for surgery. She underwent left frontotemporoparietal decompressive craniotomy, evacuation of left frontoparietal intracerebral hemorrhage, and insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD). Upon opening the skull, there was significant dural tension, and on opening the dura mater, there was a large amount of bleeding, in addition to brain swelling and necrosis. Estimated blood loss was 3.5 L. She received 8 units of packed red blood cells, 3 units of cryoprecipitate, 6 units of fresh frozen plasma, and 3 units of platelets. Coagulation profile showed international normalization ratio = 3.38, prothrombin time = 51.2 s, and partial thromboplastin time = 122 s. An intraventricular pressure monitor was inserted. She returned with stable vitals to PICU. At D31, the CT scan showed extensive multi-compartmental bleed involving the left frontoparietal lobes, the interhemispheric fissure, and the left hemispheric arachnoid spaces. New white matter lesions were detected in the left posterior parietal and occipital lobes and in the left caudate head. MRI at D33 showed interval worsening with disseminated gray and white matter non-hemorrhagic lesions in the right cerebral and both cerebellar hemispheres, bilateral deep gray nuclei, as well as new necrotic non-hemorrhagic lesions in the left hemisphere (Figures 2G-I) . She was started on IVMP (30 mg/kg/ day for 5 days) and IVIG (1 g/kg/day for 2 days). Repeat MRI at D9 showed no new parenchymal hemorrhage and partial resolution of the non-hemorrhagic lesions (Figure 3) . Prednisolone was tapered course over 6 weeks. At discharge (D71), she was able to say a few words and had better power of her right side. Brain MRI performed 3 months later showed complete resolution of the non-hemorrhagic non-necrotic lesions, mainly seen in the right cerebral hemisphere and the cerebellum.
Brain biopsy of the hematoma, some small vessels, cortex, and white matter showed necrotic area, reactive and non-specific findings which could be entirely explained by compressive changes adjacent to a hematoma. There was diffuse microglial activation and signs of early microinfarcts. Blood, CSF and urine culture, and PCR (HSV1/2) were negative for bacteria and for viruses. CSF obtained through craniotomy and EVD performed at D32 showed elevated proteins 2.56 g/L, glucose 3.6 mmol/L, white blood cells 9 cells/μL, and red blood cells 1,341 cells/μL. ANA and anti-DNA antibody were negative.
Anti-extractable nuclear antigens (SSA-RO, SSB-LA, smith, RNP) were negative. Serum autoimmune antibodies panel (NMO, NMDAR, AMPA I/II, GAB, MAG, VGCC, MOG, YO, HU, RI) were negative but GAD antibody was slightly positive, possibly due to the IVIG infusion. EBV showed no signs of recent infection.
After discharge, the patient was started on regular transfusion exchange. Six months later, the patient was diagnosed to have Crohn's disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Two years later, the patient still suffers right hemiparesis but is able to walk without support. She presents an expressive aphasia. Her intellectual abilities are average, or below the mean but in the normal range, except for the speed of information processing, verbal working memory, and some elaborated executive functions.
A gene panel ( Table 1 ) targeting inflammatory disorders and post-infectious necrotic encephalopathies found a heterozygous RANBP2 missense mutation (NM_006267.4, c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu). This mutation has not been previously reported in the HGMD database. This variant has been observed at a frequency of <0.01% across the entire Broad ExAC dataset of individuals without severe childhood onset disease (6/117,118 alleles). Analysis of amino acid conservation indicates that the wild-type amino acid Lys1665 is conserved in 59 of 60 mammals examined, including 12 of 12 primates, and in 25 of 34 nonmammalian vertebrates increasing the likelihood that a change at this position might not be tolerated. In silico tools predict that this variant is damaging (SIFT and Align GVGD).
Several differential diagnoses of acute encephalopathy in a patient with sickle cell anemia can be considered. An infectious encephalitis, including herpes encephalitis, was ruled out by blood and CSF bacterial and viral cultures and negative HSV I/ II PCR. Nasopharyngeal aspirate was negative for viruses. Some infections have been previously associated with necrotizing encephalitis such as Influenza A (11) . SCD patients are prone to ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes (12) . Primary hemorrhagic stroke is uncommon in pediatric SCD. Most cases were from adults and have been described in the context of previous ischemic stroke, aneurysms, low hemoglobin, acute chest syndrome, and hypertransfusions. Moreover, although hemorrhagic stroke has been described in SCD patients receiving transfusion or corticosteroids, it was in the context of elevated blood pressure which was not present in our case (13) . This was ruled out as the MRI findings were not consistent with a specific vascular territory and normal arterial and venous flows were shown on vascular imaging. Another differential is posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome which has been reported in SCD patients (13) (14) (15) (16) . However, it is unlikely in our case due to the severity of the brain injury and the absence of classic precipitating factors of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome such as high blood pressure. Macrophage activation syndrome could also lead to acute necrotic brain injury. However, it is associated to high ferritin and low triglycerides at the time of the encephalopathy, other multisystemic injuries, typical neuropathological findings, and recurrence over time, which were not noted in our patient (17) . Parvovirus B19 has been described to cause encephalopathy in sickle cell patients. It is associated with aplastic anemia. It caused punctate areas of hemorrhages in the basal ganglia, periventricular white matter, and mainly along the posterior parietal cortex. This was attributed to parvovirus B19-induced vasculitis (18) . In our patient, there was no sign of aplasia or any neuroradiological finding of parvovirus B19 infection. Finally, acute encephalitis has been observed in SCD patients in the context of arterial hypoxemia from fat embolism, pulmonary embolism, sudden anemia, or acute chest syndrome due to pneumonia (19) . This was ruled out as the patient did not have clinical or radiological signs of acute chest syndrome or embolism and there was no arterial hypoxemia.
Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis has been described in pediatric patients following ADEM or ADEM-like episodes (20, 21) . AHEM is the most plausible diagnosis in our patients based on the clinical and radiological presentation, the preceding ADEM-like episode, and the exclusion of other etiologies of acute encephalopathy. Other patients with AHEM have been described in the SCD context (7, 19) . Many treatment options have been used to treat AHEM; of these, IV steroids have been associated with survival following aggressive, high-dose corticosteroid therapy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (22) (23) (24) (25) .
Autosomal dominant mutations (with incomplete penetrance) in RANBP2 have been associated with susceptibility to infectioninduced necrotizing encephalopathy (26, 27) . Previously healthy patients with pathogenic mutations in RANBP2 can present acutely with encephalopathy and convulsions in the context of an infection, with brain imaging revealing involvement of the brainstem, thalami, putamina, cerebellum and external capsules, and claustrum (10) . Our patient has a similar presentation and imaging features as infection-induced necrotizing encephalopathy, including bilateral thalamic involvement. The rare heterozygous previously unreported variant we identified in RANBP2 affects a very conserved aminoacid and is predicted deleterious using in silico tools (a prediction tool performing a fast bioinformatics analysis which can predict the pathogenicity of a variant based on the change to an amino acid). It is possible that this variant is pathogenic and responsible for the clinical phenotype. There is an overlap between the diagnostic criteria of AHEM and those of acute hemorrhagic encephalopathy (25, 26) making possible that both entities might be part of the same pathophysiological continuum. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells (28) . Hence, RANBP2 dysfunction might make neuronal cells much vulnerable to energy failure and necrosis when exposed to inflammatory or other stresses, such as those implicated in AHEM.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of our institutional ethic committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants for the publication.
All authors participated in gathering the data, designing the article, and discussing and editing the manuscript.
aCKNoWleDgMeNts We thank Dr. S. Abish, Dr. N. Ahmed, and Mrs. C. Guiraut for their help. We are grateful to the Hoppenheim Fund from the Montreal Children Hospital Foundation.
The first author of this article received a scholarship from the Hoppenheim Fund, Montreal Children Hospital Foundation (2016). This work was supported by grants from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (grant number: G-14-0005756), and Foundation of Stars. | 1,561 | What are the salient findings in Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis? | {
"answer_start": [
615
],
"text": [
"fulminant encephalopathy with hemorrhagic necrosis"
]
} | 3,033 |
528 | Acute Hemorrhagic Encephalitis Responding to Combined Decompressive Craniectomy, Intravenous Immunoglobulin, and Corticosteroid Therapies: Association with Novel RANBP2 Variant
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857578/
SHA: ef6638accc1ef599ad1aafd47b3a86f2b904cc76
Authors: Alawadhi, Abdulla; Saint-Martin, Christine; Bhanji, Farhan; Srour, Myriam; Atkinson, Jeffrey; Sébire, Guillaume
Date: 2018-03-12
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00130
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) is considered as a rare form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis characterized by fulminant encephalopathy with hemorrhagic necrosis and most often fatal outcome. OBJECTIVE: To report the association with Ran Binding Protein (RANBP2) gene variant and the response to decompressive craniectomy and high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in life-threatening AHEM. DESIGN: Single case study. CASE REPORT: A 6-year-old girl known to have sickle cell disease (SCD) presented an acquired demyelinating syndrome (ADS) with diplopia due to sudden unilateral fourth nerve palsy. She received five pulses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day). Two weeks after steroid weaning, she developed right hemiplegia and coma. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a left frontal necrotico-hemorrhagic lesion and new multifocal areas of demyelination. She underwent decompressive craniotomy and evacuation of an ongoing left frontoparietal hemorrhage. Comprehensive investigations ruled out vascular and infectious process. The neurological deterioration stopped concomitantly with combined neurosurgical drainage of the hematoma, decompressive craniotomy, IVMP, and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). She developed during the following months Crohn disease and sclerosing cholangitis. After 2-year follow-up, there was no new neurological manifestation. The patient still suffered right hemiplegia and aphasia, but was able to walk. Cognitive/behavioral abilities significantly recovered. A heterozygous novel rare missense variant (c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu) was identified in RANBP2, a gene associated with acute necrotizing encephalopathy. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells. CONCLUSION: In any ADS occurring in the context of SCD and/or autoimmune condition, we recommend to slowly wean steroids and to closely monitor the patient after weaning to quickly treat any recurrence of neurological symptom with IVMP. This case report, in addition to others, stresses the likely efficacy of combined craniotomy, IVIG, and IVMP treatments in AHEM. RANBP2 mutations may sensitize the brain to inflammation and predispose to AHEM.
Text: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) or acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis is considered a rare and extremely severe form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). AHEM is characterized by an acute and rapidly progressive encephalopathy including hemorrhagic necrosis of the parenchyma of the central nervous system. It is usually fatal (1) (2) (3) . Many treatment options have been used including intravenous (IV) steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), and plasmapheresis (4) . There have been few reports of survival following early intervention with high-dose corticosteroid therapy and/or decompressive craniotomy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .
RANBP2, a nuclear pore protein, has numerous roles in the cell cycle. RANBP2 is associated with microtubules and mitochondria suggesting roles in intracellular protein trafficking or energy maintenance and homeostasis of neuronal cells. RANBP2 mutations have been reported in acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) which could present with coma, convulsions, and encephalopathy. The hallmark of ANE is multiple, symmetric brain lesions located in the thalami bilaterally, putamina, deep periventricular white matter, cerebellum, and brainstem. It could be triggered by a viral infection in previously healthy children (10) .
We report a new case of AHEM associated to a Ran Binding Protein (RANBP)-2 variant and responsive to combined craniectomy, intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP), and IVIG as inaugural manifestation of multisystemic autoimmunity in a girl with sickle cell disease (SCD).
A 6-year-old girl known for SCD treated on folic acid and hydroxyurea was admitted for new-onset diplopia [day 0 (D0): refers to the start of the diplopia] 6 weeks after respiratory tract infection due to rhinovirus. She was diagnosed with a fourth nerve palsy secondary to an acquired demyelinating syndrome. The initial brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed at D5 after onset of neurological symptom showed left midbrain and pontine edema with expansion of the brainstem, right caudate nucleus, and scattered supratentorial white matter foci of high T2/FLAIR signal (Figure 1 ). Brain MR angiography (MRA) showed a normal appearing circle of Willis. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained by lumber puncture was normal (WBC 1 cells/μl, RBC 0 cells/μl, glucose 2.9 mmol/L, protein 0.18 g/L, and absent oligoclonal bands). The infectious workup including blood bacterial culture, CSF bacterial and viral cultures, nasopharyngeal aspirate (tested for Influenza A, Influenza B, Parainfluenza 1-2-3, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus OC43, Metapneumovirus, Enterovirus, and Rhinovirus), and serologies for Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, HTLV I, HTLV II, HIV1, and Lyme disease were negative. Bartonella Henselae IgG was positive (1:1,280) reflecting a previously acquired common and self-limited infection in our area. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) were positive (1:160). B12 and folate levels were normal. Smooth muscle antibodies were negative. Anti-mitochondrial antibodies were positive. Sedimentation rate was 65 mm/h. She was treated with five doses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day) followed by 9 days of oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day). At discharge, her neurological exam was significant only for vertical diplopia.
She presented 1 month later with 5 days of upper respiratory tract infection symptoms, fever, headache, and a rapidly progressive right-hand weakness (D30) with normal alertness. She had normal blood pressure (120/81 mmHg). She was started on cefotaxime, vancomycin, and acyclovir. White cell count was 13.4 × 10 9 /L, hemoglobin was 7.8 g/L, and platelets were 239 × 10 9 /L. While in the MRI machine (D30) she deteriorated with vomiting and reduced level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale dropped from 15 to 8 over 30 min). Brain MRI showed a rapid progression over a few sequences of an active bleed involving both superficial and deep gray matter as well as subcortical white matter of the left hemisphere anterior quadrant. Brain MRA was normal (Figures 2A-F) . The patient was immediately brought out of the magnet and her physical exam demonstrated unequal dilated pupils. She received IV mannitol and hypertonic saline for the management of acute intracranial hypertension/ herniation and was taken for surgery. She underwent left frontotemporoparietal decompressive craniotomy, evacuation of left frontoparietal intracerebral hemorrhage, and insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD). Upon opening the skull, there was significant dural tension, and on opening the dura mater, there was a large amount of bleeding, in addition to brain swelling and necrosis. Estimated blood loss was 3.5 L. She received 8 units of packed red blood cells, 3 units of cryoprecipitate, 6 units of fresh frozen plasma, and 3 units of platelets. Coagulation profile showed international normalization ratio = 3.38, prothrombin time = 51.2 s, and partial thromboplastin time = 122 s. An intraventricular pressure monitor was inserted. She returned with stable vitals to PICU. At D31, the CT scan showed extensive multi-compartmental bleed involving the left frontoparietal lobes, the interhemispheric fissure, and the left hemispheric arachnoid spaces. New white matter lesions were detected in the left posterior parietal and occipital lobes and in the left caudate head. MRI at D33 showed interval worsening with disseminated gray and white matter non-hemorrhagic lesions in the right cerebral and both cerebellar hemispheres, bilateral deep gray nuclei, as well as new necrotic non-hemorrhagic lesions in the left hemisphere (Figures 2G-I) . She was started on IVMP (30 mg/kg/ day for 5 days) and IVIG (1 g/kg/day for 2 days). Repeat MRI at D9 showed no new parenchymal hemorrhage and partial resolution of the non-hemorrhagic lesions (Figure 3) . Prednisolone was tapered course over 6 weeks. At discharge (D71), she was able to say a few words and had better power of her right side. Brain MRI performed 3 months later showed complete resolution of the non-hemorrhagic non-necrotic lesions, mainly seen in the right cerebral hemisphere and the cerebellum.
Brain biopsy of the hematoma, some small vessels, cortex, and white matter showed necrotic area, reactive and non-specific findings which could be entirely explained by compressive changes adjacent to a hematoma. There was diffuse microglial activation and signs of early microinfarcts. Blood, CSF and urine culture, and PCR (HSV1/2) were negative for bacteria and for viruses. CSF obtained through craniotomy and EVD performed at D32 showed elevated proteins 2.56 g/L, glucose 3.6 mmol/L, white blood cells 9 cells/μL, and red blood cells 1,341 cells/μL. ANA and anti-DNA antibody were negative.
Anti-extractable nuclear antigens (SSA-RO, SSB-LA, smith, RNP) were negative. Serum autoimmune antibodies panel (NMO, NMDAR, AMPA I/II, GAB, MAG, VGCC, MOG, YO, HU, RI) were negative but GAD antibody was slightly positive, possibly due to the IVIG infusion. EBV showed no signs of recent infection.
After discharge, the patient was started on regular transfusion exchange. Six months later, the patient was diagnosed to have Crohn's disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Two years later, the patient still suffers right hemiparesis but is able to walk without support. She presents an expressive aphasia. Her intellectual abilities are average, or below the mean but in the normal range, except for the speed of information processing, verbal working memory, and some elaborated executive functions.
A gene panel ( Table 1 ) targeting inflammatory disorders and post-infectious necrotic encephalopathies found a heterozygous RANBP2 missense mutation (NM_006267.4, c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu). This mutation has not been previously reported in the HGMD database. This variant has been observed at a frequency of <0.01% across the entire Broad ExAC dataset of individuals without severe childhood onset disease (6/117,118 alleles). Analysis of amino acid conservation indicates that the wild-type amino acid Lys1665 is conserved in 59 of 60 mammals examined, including 12 of 12 primates, and in 25 of 34 nonmammalian vertebrates increasing the likelihood that a change at this position might not be tolerated. In silico tools predict that this variant is damaging (SIFT and Align GVGD).
Several differential diagnoses of acute encephalopathy in a patient with sickle cell anemia can be considered. An infectious encephalitis, including herpes encephalitis, was ruled out by blood and CSF bacterial and viral cultures and negative HSV I/ II PCR. Nasopharyngeal aspirate was negative for viruses. Some infections have been previously associated with necrotizing encephalitis such as Influenza A (11) . SCD patients are prone to ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes (12) . Primary hemorrhagic stroke is uncommon in pediatric SCD. Most cases were from adults and have been described in the context of previous ischemic stroke, aneurysms, low hemoglobin, acute chest syndrome, and hypertransfusions. Moreover, although hemorrhagic stroke has been described in SCD patients receiving transfusion or corticosteroids, it was in the context of elevated blood pressure which was not present in our case (13) . This was ruled out as the MRI findings were not consistent with a specific vascular territory and normal arterial and venous flows were shown on vascular imaging. Another differential is posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome which has been reported in SCD patients (13) (14) (15) (16) . However, it is unlikely in our case due to the severity of the brain injury and the absence of classic precipitating factors of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome such as high blood pressure. Macrophage activation syndrome could also lead to acute necrotic brain injury. However, it is associated to high ferritin and low triglycerides at the time of the encephalopathy, other multisystemic injuries, typical neuropathological findings, and recurrence over time, which were not noted in our patient (17) . Parvovirus B19 has been described to cause encephalopathy in sickle cell patients. It is associated with aplastic anemia. It caused punctate areas of hemorrhages in the basal ganglia, periventricular white matter, and mainly along the posterior parietal cortex. This was attributed to parvovirus B19-induced vasculitis (18) . In our patient, there was no sign of aplasia or any neuroradiological finding of parvovirus B19 infection. Finally, acute encephalitis has been observed in SCD patients in the context of arterial hypoxemia from fat embolism, pulmonary embolism, sudden anemia, or acute chest syndrome due to pneumonia (19) . This was ruled out as the patient did not have clinical or radiological signs of acute chest syndrome or embolism and there was no arterial hypoxemia.
Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis has been described in pediatric patients following ADEM or ADEM-like episodes (20, 21) . AHEM is the most plausible diagnosis in our patients based on the clinical and radiological presentation, the preceding ADEM-like episode, and the exclusion of other etiologies of acute encephalopathy. Other patients with AHEM have been described in the SCD context (7, 19) . Many treatment options have been used to treat AHEM; of these, IV steroids have been associated with survival following aggressive, high-dose corticosteroid therapy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (22) (23) (24) (25) .
Autosomal dominant mutations (with incomplete penetrance) in RANBP2 have been associated with susceptibility to infectioninduced necrotizing encephalopathy (26, 27) . Previously healthy patients with pathogenic mutations in RANBP2 can present acutely with encephalopathy and convulsions in the context of an infection, with brain imaging revealing involvement of the brainstem, thalami, putamina, cerebellum and external capsules, and claustrum (10) . Our patient has a similar presentation and imaging features as infection-induced necrotizing encephalopathy, including bilateral thalamic involvement. The rare heterozygous previously unreported variant we identified in RANBP2 affects a very conserved aminoacid and is predicted deleterious using in silico tools (a prediction tool performing a fast bioinformatics analysis which can predict the pathogenicity of a variant based on the change to an amino acid). It is possible that this variant is pathogenic and responsible for the clinical phenotype. There is an overlap between the diagnostic criteria of AHEM and those of acute hemorrhagic encephalopathy (25, 26) making possible that both entities might be part of the same pathophysiological continuum. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells (28) . Hence, RANBP2 dysfunction might make neuronal cells much vulnerable to energy failure and necrosis when exposed to inflammatory or other stresses, such as those implicated in AHEM.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of our institutional ethic committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants for the publication.
All authors participated in gathering the data, designing the article, and discussing and editing the manuscript.
aCKNoWleDgMeNts We thank Dr. S. Abish, Dr. N. Ahmed, and Mrs. C. Guiraut for their help. We are grateful to the Hoppenheim Fund from the Montreal Children Hospital Foundation.
The first author of this article received a scholarship from the Hoppenheim Fund, Montreal Children Hospital Foundation (2016). This work was supported by grants from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (grant number: G-14-0005756), and Foundation of Stars. | 1,561 | What is RANBP2? | {
"answer_start": [
3370
],
"text": [
"nuclear pore protein"
]
} | 3,034 |
529 | Acute Hemorrhagic Encephalitis Responding to Combined Decompressive Craniectomy, Intravenous Immunoglobulin, and Corticosteroid Therapies: Association with Novel RANBP2 Variant
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857578/
SHA: ef6638accc1ef599ad1aafd47b3a86f2b904cc76
Authors: Alawadhi, Abdulla; Saint-Martin, Christine; Bhanji, Farhan; Srour, Myriam; Atkinson, Jeffrey; Sébire, Guillaume
Date: 2018-03-12
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00130
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) is considered as a rare form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis characterized by fulminant encephalopathy with hemorrhagic necrosis and most often fatal outcome. OBJECTIVE: To report the association with Ran Binding Protein (RANBP2) gene variant and the response to decompressive craniectomy and high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in life-threatening AHEM. DESIGN: Single case study. CASE REPORT: A 6-year-old girl known to have sickle cell disease (SCD) presented an acquired demyelinating syndrome (ADS) with diplopia due to sudden unilateral fourth nerve palsy. She received five pulses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day). Two weeks after steroid weaning, she developed right hemiplegia and coma. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a left frontal necrotico-hemorrhagic lesion and new multifocal areas of demyelination. She underwent decompressive craniotomy and evacuation of an ongoing left frontoparietal hemorrhage. Comprehensive investigations ruled out vascular and infectious process. The neurological deterioration stopped concomitantly with combined neurosurgical drainage of the hematoma, decompressive craniotomy, IVMP, and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). She developed during the following months Crohn disease and sclerosing cholangitis. After 2-year follow-up, there was no new neurological manifestation. The patient still suffered right hemiplegia and aphasia, but was able to walk. Cognitive/behavioral abilities significantly recovered. A heterozygous novel rare missense variant (c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu) was identified in RANBP2, a gene associated with acute necrotizing encephalopathy. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells. CONCLUSION: In any ADS occurring in the context of SCD and/or autoimmune condition, we recommend to slowly wean steroids and to closely monitor the patient after weaning to quickly treat any recurrence of neurological symptom with IVMP. This case report, in addition to others, stresses the likely efficacy of combined craniotomy, IVIG, and IVMP treatments in AHEM. RANBP2 mutations may sensitize the brain to inflammation and predispose to AHEM.
Text: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) or acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis is considered a rare and extremely severe form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). AHEM is characterized by an acute and rapidly progressive encephalopathy including hemorrhagic necrosis of the parenchyma of the central nervous system. It is usually fatal (1) (2) (3) . Many treatment options have been used including intravenous (IV) steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), and plasmapheresis (4) . There have been few reports of survival following early intervention with high-dose corticosteroid therapy and/or decompressive craniotomy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .
RANBP2, a nuclear pore protein, has numerous roles in the cell cycle. RANBP2 is associated with microtubules and mitochondria suggesting roles in intracellular protein trafficking or energy maintenance and homeostasis of neuronal cells. RANBP2 mutations have been reported in acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) which could present with coma, convulsions, and encephalopathy. The hallmark of ANE is multiple, symmetric brain lesions located in the thalami bilaterally, putamina, deep periventricular white matter, cerebellum, and brainstem. It could be triggered by a viral infection in previously healthy children (10) .
We report a new case of AHEM associated to a Ran Binding Protein (RANBP)-2 variant and responsive to combined craniectomy, intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP), and IVIG as inaugural manifestation of multisystemic autoimmunity in a girl with sickle cell disease (SCD).
A 6-year-old girl known for SCD treated on folic acid and hydroxyurea was admitted for new-onset diplopia [day 0 (D0): refers to the start of the diplopia] 6 weeks after respiratory tract infection due to rhinovirus. She was diagnosed with a fourth nerve palsy secondary to an acquired demyelinating syndrome. The initial brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed at D5 after onset of neurological symptom showed left midbrain and pontine edema with expansion of the brainstem, right caudate nucleus, and scattered supratentorial white matter foci of high T2/FLAIR signal (Figure 1 ). Brain MR angiography (MRA) showed a normal appearing circle of Willis. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained by lumber puncture was normal (WBC 1 cells/μl, RBC 0 cells/μl, glucose 2.9 mmol/L, protein 0.18 g/L, and absent oligoclonal bands). The infectious workup including blood bacterial culture, CSF bacterial and viral cultures, nasopharyngeal aspirate (tested for Influenza A, Influenza B, Parainfluenza 1-2-3, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus OC43, Metapneumovirus, Enterovirus, and Rhinovirus), and serologies for Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, HTLV I, HTLV II, HIV1, and Lyme disease were negative. Bartonella Henselae IgG was positive (1:1,280) reflecting a previously acquired common and self-limited infection in our area. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) were positive (1:160). B12 and folate levels were normal. Smooth muscle antibodies were negative. Anti-mitochondrial antibodies were positive. Sedimentation rate was 65 mm/h. She was treated with five doses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day) followed by 9 days of oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day). At discharge, her neurological exam was significant only for vertical diplopia.
She presented 1 month later with 5 days of upper respiratory tract infection symptoms, fever, headache, and a rapidly progressive right-hand weakness (D30) with normal alertness. She had normal blood pressure (120/81 mmHg). She was started on cefotaxime, vancomycin, and acyclovir. White cell count was 13.4 × 10 9 /L, hemoglobin was 7.8 g/L, and platelets were 239 × 10 9 /L. While in the MRI machine (D30) she deteriorated with vomiting and reduced level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale dropped from 15 to 8 over 30 min). Brain MRI showed a rapid progression over a few sequences of an active bleed involving both superficial and deep gray matter as well as subcortical white matter of the left hemisphere anterior quadrant. Brain MRA was normal (Figures 2A-F) . The patient was immediately brought out of the magnet and her physical exam demonstrated unequal dilated pupils. She received IV mannitol and hypertonic saline for the management of acute intracranial hypertension/ herniation and was taken for surgery. She underwent left frontotemporoparietal decompressive craniotomy, evacuation of left frontoparietal intracerebral hemorrhage, and insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD). Upon opening the skull, there was significant dural tension, and on opening the dura mater, there was a large amount of bleeding, in addition to brain swelling and necrosis. Estimated blood loss was 3.5 L. She received 8 units of packed red blood cells, 3 units of cryoprecipitate, 6 units of fresh frozen plasma, and 3 units of platelets. Coagulation profile showed international normalization ratio = 3.38, prothrombin time = 51.2 s, and partial thromboplastin time = 122 s. An intraventricular pressure monitor was inserted. She returned with stable vitals to PICU. At D31, the CT scan showed extensive multi-compartmental bleed involving the left frontoparietal lobes, the interhemispheric fissure, and the left hemispheric arachnoid spaces. New white matter lesions were detected in the left posterior parietal and occipital lobes and in the left caudate head. MRI at D33 showed interval worsening with disseminated gray and white matter non-hemorrhagic lesions in the right cerebral and both cerebellar hemispheres, bilateral deep gray nuclei, as well as new necrotic non-hemorrhagic lesions in the left hemisphere (Figures 2G-I) . She was started on IVMP (30 mg/kg/ day for 5 days) and IVIG (1 g/kg/day for 2 days). Repeat MRI at D9 showed no new parenchymal hemorrhage and partial resolution of the non-hemorrhagic lesions (Figure 3) . Prednisolone was tapered course over 6 weeks. At discharge (D71), she was able to say a few words and had better power of her right side. Brain MRI performed 3 months later showed complete resolution of the non-hemorrhagic non-necrotic lesions, mainly seen in the right cerebral hemisphere and the cerebellum.
Brain biopsy of the hematoma, some small vessels, cortex, and white matter showed necrotic area, reactive and non-specific findings which could be entirely explained by compressive changes adjacent to a hematoma. There was diffuse microglial activation and signs of early microinfarcts. Blood, CSF and urine culture, and PCR (HSV1/2) were negative for bacteria and for viruses. CSF obtained through craniotomy and EVD performed at D32 showed elevated proteins 2.56 g/L, glucose 3.6 mmol/L, white blood cells 9 cells/μL, and red blood cells 1,341 cells/μL. ANA and anti-DNA antibody were negative.
Anti-extractable nuclear antigens (SSA-RO, SSB-LA, smith, RNP) were negative. Serum autoimmune antibodies panel (NMO, NMDAR, AMPA I/II, GAB, MAG, VGCC, MOG, YO, HU, RI) were negative but GAD antibody was slightly positive, possibly due to the IVIG infusion. EBV showed no signs of recent infection.
After discharge, the patient was started on regular transfusion exchange. Six months later, the patient was diagnosed to have Crohn's disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Two years later, the patient still suffers right hemiparesis but is able to walk without support. She presents an expressive aphasia. Her intellectual abilities are average, or below the mean but in the normal range, except for the speed of information processing, verbal working memory, and some elaborated executive functions.
A gene panel ( Table 1 ) targeting inflammatory disorders and post-infectious necrotic encephalopathies found a heterozygous RANBP2 missense mutation (NM_006267.4, c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu). This mutation has not been previously reported in the HGMD database. This variant has been observed at a frequency of <0.01% across the entire Broad ExAC dataset of individuals without severe childhood onset disease (6/117,118 alleles). Analysis of amino acid conservation indicates that the wild-type amino acid Lys1665 is conserved in 59 of 60 mammals examined, including 12 of 12 primates, and in 25 of 34 nonmammalian vertebrates increasing the likelihood that a change at this position might not be tolerated. In silico tools predict that this variant is damaging (SIFT and Align GVGD).
Several differential diagnoses of acute encephalopathy in a patient with sickle cell anemia can be considered. An infectious encephalitis, including herpes encephalitis, was ruled out by blood and CSF bacterial and viral cultures and negative HSV I/ II PCR. Nasopharyngeal aspirate was negative for viruses. Some infections have been previously associated with necrotizing encephalitis such as Influenza A (11) . SCD patients are prone to ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes (12) . Primary hemorrhagic stroke is uncommon in pediatric SCD. Most cases were from adults and have been described in the context of previous ischemic stroke, aneurysms, low hemoglobin, acute chest syndrome, and hypertransfusions. Moreover, although hemorrhagic stroke has been described in SCD patients receiving transfusion or corticosteroids, it was in the context of elevated blood pressure which was not present in our case (13) . This was ruled out as the MRI findings were not consistent with a specific vascular territory and normal arterial and venous flows were shown on vascular imaging. Another differential is posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome which has been reported in SCD patients (13) (14) (15) (16) . However, it is unlikely in our case due to the severity of the brain injury and the absence of classic precipitating factors of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome such as high blood pressure. Macrophage activation syndrome could also lead to acute necrotic brain injury. However, it is associated to high ferritin and low triglycerides at the time of the encephalopathy, other multisystemic injuries, typical neuropathological findings, and recurrence over time, which were not noted in our patient (17) . Parvovirus B19 has been described to cause encephalopathy in sickle cell patients. It is associated with aplastic anemia. It caused punctate areas of hemorrhages in the basal ganglia, periventricular white matter, and mainly along the posterior parietal cortex. This was attributed to parvovirus B19-induced vasculitis (18) . In our patient, there was no sign of aplasia or any neuroradiological finding of parvovirus B19 infection. Finally, acute encephalitis has been observed in SCD patients in the context of arterial hypoxemia from fat embolism, pulmonary embolism, sudden anemia, or acute chest syndrome due to pneumonia (19) . This was ruled out as the patient did not have clinical or radiological signs of acute chest syndrome or embolism and there was no arterial hypoxemia.
Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis has been described in pediatric patients following ADEM or ADEM-like episodes (20, 21) . AHEM is the most plausible diagnosis in our patients based on the clinical and radiological presentation, the preceding ADEM-like episode, and the exclusion of other etiologies of acute encephalopathy. Other patients with AHEM have been described in the SCD context (7, 19) . Many treatment options have been used to treat AHEM; of these, IV steroids have been associated with survival following aggressive, high-dose corticosteroid therapy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (22) (23) (24) (25) .
Autosomal dominant mutations (with incomplete penetrance) in RANBP2 have been associated with susceptibility to infectioninduced necrotizing encephalopathy (26, 27) . Previously healthy patients with pathogenic mutations in RANBP2 can present acutely with encephalopathy and convulsions in the context of an infection, with brain imaging revealing involvement of the brainstem, thalami, putamina, cerebellum and external capsules, and claustrum (10) . Our patient has a similar presentation and imaging features as infection-induced necrotizing encephalopathy, including bilateral thalamic involvement. The rare heterozygous previously unreported variant we identified in RANBP2 affects a very conserved aminoacid and is predicted deleterious using in silico tools (a prediction tool performing a fast bioinformatics analysis which can predict the pathogenicity of a variant based on the change to an amino acid). It is possible that this variant is pathogenic and responsible for the clinical phenotype. There is an overlap between the diagnostic criteria of AHEM and those of acute hemorrhagic encephalopathy (25, 26) making possible that both entities might be part of the same pathophysiological continuum. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells (28) . Hence, RANBP2 dysfunction might make neuronal cells much vulnerable to energy failure and necrosis when exposed to inflammatory or other stresses, such as those implicated in AHEM.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of our institutional ethic committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants for the publication.
All authors participated in gathering the data, designing the article, and discussing and editing the manuscript.
aCKNoWleDgMeNts We thank Dr. S. Abish, Dr. N. Ahmed, and Mrs. C. Guiraut for their help. We are grateful to the Hoppenheim Fund from the Montreal Children Hospital Foundation.
The first author of this article received a scholarship from the Hoppenheim Fund, Montreal Children Hospital Foundation (2016). This work was supported by grants from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (grant number: G-14-0005756), and Foundation of Stars. | 1,561 | What is the suggested role of RANBP2 in the cell? | {
"answer_start": [
3506
],
"text": [
"intracellular protein trafficking or energy maintenance and homeostasis of neuronal cells"
]
} | 3,035 |
530 | Acute Hemorrhagic Encephalitis Responding to Combined Decompressive Craniectomy, Intravenous Immunoglobulin, and Corticosteroid Therapies: Association with Novel RANBP2 Variant
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857578/
SHA: ef6638accc1ef599ad1aafd47b3a86f2b904cc76
Authors: Alawadhi, Abdulla; Saint-Martin, Christine; Bhanji, Farhan; Srour, Myriam; Atkinson, Jeffrey; Sébire, Guillaume
Date: 2018-03-12
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00130
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) is considered as a rare form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis characterized by fulminant encephalopathy with hemorrhagic necrosis and most often fatal outcome. OBJECTIVE: To report the association with Ran Binding Protein (RANBP2) gene variant and the response to decompressive craniectomy and high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in life-threatening AHEM. DESIGN: Single case study. CASE REPORT: A 6-year-old girl known to have sickle cell disease (SCD) presented an acquired demyelinating syndrome (ADS) with diplopia due to sudden unilateral fourth nerve palsy. She received five pulses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day). Two weeks after steroid weaning, she developed right hemiplegia and coma. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a left frontal necrotico-hemorrhagic lesion and new multifocal areas of demyelination. She underwent decompressive craniotomy and evacuation of an ongoing left frontoparietal hemorrhage. Comprehensive investigations ruled out vascular and infectious process. The neurological deterioration stopped concomitantly with combined neurosurgical drainage of the hematoma, decompressive craniotomy, IVMP, and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). She developed during the following months Crohn disease and sclerosing cholangitis. After 2-year follow-up, there was no new neurological manifestation. The patient still suffered right hemiplegia and aphasia, but was able to walk. Cognitive/behavioral abilities significantly recovered. A heterozygous novel rare missense variant (c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu) was identified in RANBP2, a gene associated with acute necrotizing encephalopathy. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells. CONCLUSION: In any ADS occurring in the context of SCD and/or autoimmune condition, we recommend to slowly wean steroids and to closely monitor the patient after weaning to quickly treat any recurrence of neurological symptom with IVMP. This case report, in addition to others, stresses the likely efficacy of combined craniotomy, IVIG, and IVMP treatments in AHEM. RANBP2 mutations may sensitize the brain to inflammation and predispose to AHEM.
Text: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) or acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis is considered a rare and extremely severe form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). AHEM is characterized by an acute and rapidly progressive encephalopathy including hemorrhagic necrosis of the parenchyma of the central nervous system. It is usually fatal (1) (2) (3) . Many treatment options have been used including intravenous (IV) steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), and plasmapheresis (4) . There have been few reports of survival following early intervention with high-dose corticosteroid therapy and/or decompressive craniotomy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .
RANBP2, a nuclear pore protein, has numerous roles in the cell cycle. RANBP2 is associated with microtubules and mitochondria suggesting roles in intracellular protein trafficking or energy maintenance and homeostasis of neuronal cells. RANBP2 mutations have been reported in acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) which could present with coma, convulsions, and encephalopathy. The hallmark of ANE is multiple, symmetric brain lesions located in the thalami bilaterally, putamina, deep periventricular white matter, cerebellum, and brainstem. It could be triggered by a viral infection in previously healthy children (10) .
We report a new case of AHEM associated to a Ran Binding Protein (RANBP)-2 variant and responsive to combined craniectomy, intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP), and IVIG as inaugural manifestation of multisystemic autoimmunity in a girl with sickle cell disease (SCD).
A 6-year-old girl known for SCD treated on folic acid and hydroxyurea was admitted for new-onset diplopia [day 0 (D0): refers to the start of the diplopia] 6 weeks after respiratory tract infection due to rhinovirus. She was diagnosed with a fourth nerve palsy secondary to an acquired demyelinating syndrome. The initial brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed at D5 after onset of neurological symptom showed left midbrain and pontine edema with expansion of the brainstem, right caudate nucleus, and scattered supratentorial white matter foci of high T2/FLAIR signal (Figure 1 ). Brain MR angiography (MRA) showed a normal appearing circle of Willis. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained by lumber puncture was normal (WBC 1 cells/μl, RBC 0 cells/μl, glucose 2.9 mmol/L, protein 0.18 g/L, and absent oligoclonal bands). The infectious workup including blood bacterial culture, CSF bacterial and viral cultures, nasopharyngeal aspirate (tested for Influenza A, Influenza B, Parainfluenza 1-2-3, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus OC43, Metapneumovirus, Enterovirus, and Rhinovirus), and serologies for Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, HTLV I, HTLV II, HIV1, and Lyme disease were negative. Bartonella Henselae IgG was positive (1:1,280) reflecting a previously acquired common and self-limited infection in our area. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) were positive (1:160). B12 and folate levels were normal. Smooth muscle antibodies were negative. Anti-mitochondrial antibodies were positive. Sedimentation rate was 65 mm/h. She was treated with five doses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day) followed by 9 days of oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day). At discharge, her neurological exam was significant only for vertical diplopia.
She presented 1 month later with 5 days of upper respiratory tract infection symptoms, fever, headache, and a rapidly progressive right-hand weakness (D30) with normal alertness. She had normal blood pressure (120/81 mmHg). She was started on cefotaxime, vancomycin, and acyclovir. White cell count was 13.4 × 10 9 /L, hemoglobin was 7.8 g/L, and platelets were 239 × 10 9 /L. While in the MRI machine (D30) she deteriorated with vomiting and reduced level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale dropped from 15 to 8 over 30 min). Brain MRI showed a rapid progression over a few sequences of an active bleed involving both superficial and deep gray matter as well as subcortical white matter of the left hemisphere anterior quadrant. Brain MRA was normal (Figures 2A-F) . The patient was immediately brought out of the magnet and her physical exam demonstrated unequal dilated pupils. She received IV mannitol and hypertonic saline for the management of acute intracranial hypertension/ herniation and was taken for surgery. She underwent left frontotemporoparietal decompressive craniotomy, evacuation of left frontoparietal intracerebral hemorrhage, and insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD). Upon opening the skull, there was significant dural tension, and on opening the dura mater, there was a large amount of bleeding, in addition to brain swelling and necrosis. Estimated blood loss was 3.5 L. She received 8 units of packed red blood cells, 3 units of cryoprecipitate, 6 units of fresh frozen plasma, and 3 units of platelets. Coagulation profile showed international normalization ratio = 3.38, prothrombin time = 51.2 s, and partial thromboplastin time = 122 s. An intraventricular pressure monitor was inserted. She returned with stable vitals to PICU. At D31, the CT scan showed extensive multi-compartmental bleed involving the left frontoparietal lobes, the interhemispheric fissure, and the left hemispheric arachnoid spaces. New white matter lesions were detected in the left posterior parietal and occipital lobes and in the left caudate head. MRI at D33 showed interval worsening with disseminated gray and white matter non-hemorrhagic lesions in the right cerebral and both cerebellar hemispheres, bilateral deep gray nuclei, as well as new necrotic non-hemorrhagic lesions in the left hemisphere (Figures 2G-I) . She was started on IVMP (30 mg/kg/ day for 5 days) and IVIG (1 g/kg/day for 2 days). Repeat MRI at D9 showed no new parenchymal hemorrhage and partial resolution of the non-hemorrhagic lesions (Figure 3) . Prednisolone was tapered course over 6 weeks. At discharge (D71), she was able to say a few words and had better power of her right side. Brain MRI performed 3 months later showed complete resolution of the non-hemorrhagic non-necrotic lesions, mainly seen in the right cerebral hemisphere and the cerebellum.
Brain biopsy of the hematoma, some small vessels, cortex, and white matter showed necrotic area, reactive and non-specific findings which could be entirely explained by compressive changes adjacent to a hematoma. There was diffuse microglial activation and signs of early microinfarcts. Blood, CSF and urine culture, and PCR (HSV1/2) were negative for bacteria and for viruses. CSF obtained through craniotomy and EVD performed at D32 showed elevated proteins 2.56 g/L, glucose 3.6 mmol/L, white blood cells 9 cells/μL, and red blood cells 1,341 cells/μL. ANA and anti-DNA antibody were negative.
Anti-extractable nuclear antigens (SSA-RO, SSB-LA, smith, RNP) were negative. Serum autoimmune antibodies panel (NMO, NMDAR, AMPA I/II, GAB, MAG, VGCC, MOG, YO, HU, RI) were negative but GAD antibody was slightly positive, possibly due to the IVIG infusion. EBV showed no signs of recent infection.
After discharge, the patient was started on regular transfusion exchange. Six months later, the patient was diagnosed to have Crohn's disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Two years later, the patient still suffers right hemiparesis but is able to walk without support. She presents an expressive aphasia. Her intellectual abilities are average, or below the mean but in the normal range, except for the speed of information processing, verbal working memory, and some elaborated executive functions.
A gene panel ( Table 1 ) targeting inflammatory disorders and post-infectious necrotic encephalopathies found a heterozygous RANBP2 missense mutation (NM_006267.4, c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu). This mutation has not been previously reported in the HGMD database. This variant has been observed at a frequency of <0.01% across the entire Broad ExAC dataset of individuals without severe childhood onset disease (6/117,118 alleles). Analysis of amino acid conservation indicates that the wild-type amino acid Lys1665 is conserved in 59 of 60 mammals examined, including 12 of 12 primates, and in 25 of 34 nonmammalian vertebrates increasing the likelihood that a change at this position might not be tolerated. In silico tools predict that this variant is damaging (SIFT and Align GVGD).
Several differential diagnoses of acute encephalopathy in a patient with sickle cell anemia can be considered. An infectious encephalitis, including herpes encephalitis, was ruled out by blood and CSF bacterial and viral cultures and negative HSV I/ II PCR. Nasopharyngeal aspirate was negative for viruses. Some infections have been previously associated with necrotizing encephalitis such as Influenza A (11) . SCD patients are prone to ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes (12) . Primary hemorrhagic stroke is uncommon in pediatric SCD. Most cases were from adults and have been described in the context of previous ischemic stroke, aneurysms, low hemoglobin, acute chest syndrome, and hypertransfusions. Moreover, although hemorrhagic stroke has been described in SCD patients receiving transfusion or corticosteroids, it was in the context of elevated blood pressure which was not present in our case (13) . This was ruled out as the MRI findings were not consistent with a specific vascular territory and normal arterial and venous flows were shown on vascular imaging. Another differential is posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome which has been reported in SCD patients (13) (14) (15) (16) . However, it is unlikely in our case due to the severity of the brain injury and the absence of classic precipitating factors of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome such as high blood pressure. Macrophage activation syndrome could also lead to acute necrotic brain injury. However, it is associated to high ferritin and low triglycerides at the time of the encephalopathy, other multisystemic injuries, typical neuropathological findings, and recurrence over time, which were not noted in our patient (17) . Parvovirus B19 has been described to cause encephalopathy in sickle cell patients. It is associated with aplastic anemia. It caused punctate areas of hemorrhages in the basal ganglia, periventricular white matter, and mainly along the posterior parietal cortex. This was attributed to parvovirus B19-induced vasculitis (18) . In our patient, there was no sign of aplasia or any neuroradiological finding of parvovirus B19 infection. Finally, acute encephalitis has been observed in SCD patients in the context of arterial hypoxemia from fat embolism, pulmonary embolism, sudden anemia, or acute chest syndrome due to pneumonia (19) . This was ruled out as the patient did not have clinical or radiological signs of acute chest syndrome or embolism and there was no arterial hypoxemia.
Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis has been described in pediatric patients following ADEM or ADEM-like episodes (20, 21) . AHEM is the most plausible diagnosis in our patients based on the clinical and radiological presentation, the preceding ADEM-like episode, and the exclusion of other etiologies of acute encephalopathy. Other patients with AHEM have been described in the SCD context (7, 19) . Many treatment options have been used to treat AHEM; of these, IV steroids have been associated with survival following aggressive, high-dose corticosteroid therapy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (22) (23) (24) (25) .
Autosomal dominant mutations (with incomplete penetrance) in RANBP2 have been associated with susceptibility to infectioninduced necrotizing encephalopathy (26, 27) . Previously healthy patients with pathogenic mutations in RANBP2 can present acutely with encephalopathy and convulsions in the context of an infection, with brain imaging revealing involvement of the brainstem, thalami, putamina, cerebellum and external capsules, and claustrum (10) . Our patient has a similar presentation and imaging features as infection-induced necrotizing encephalopathy, including bilateral thalamic involvement. The rare heterozygous previously unreported variant we identified in RANBP2 affects a very conserved aminoacid and is predicted deleterious using in silico tools (a prediction tool performing a fast bioinformatics analysis which can predict the pathogenicity of a variant based on the change to an amino acid). It is possible that this variant is pathogenic and responsible for the clinical phenotype. There is an overlap between the diagnostic criteria of AHEM and those of acute hemorrhagic encephalopathy (25, 26) making possible that both entities might be part of the same pathophysiological continuum. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells (28) . Hence, RANBP2 dysfunction might make neuronal cells much vulnerable to energy failure and necrosis when exposed to inflammatory or other stresses, such as those implicated in AHEM.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of our institutional ethic committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants for the publication.
All authors participated in gathering the data, designing the article, and discussing and editing the manuscript.
aCKNoWleDgMeNts We thank Dr. S. Abish, Dr. N. Ahmed, and Mrs. C. Guiraut for their help. We are grateful to the Hoppenheim Fund from the Montreal Children Hospital Foundation.
The first author of this article received a scholarship from the Hoppenheim Fund, Montreal Children Hospital Foundation (2016). This work was supported by grants from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (grant number: G-14-0005756), and Foundation of Stars. | 1,561 | What is the hallmark finding of acute necrotizing encephalopathy? | {
"answer_start": [
3762
],
"text": [
"multiple, symmetric brain lesions located in the thalami bilaterally, putamina, deep periventricular white matter, cerebellum, and brainstem"
]
} | 3,036 |
531 | Acute Hemorrhagic Encephalitis Responding to Combined Decompressive Craniectomy, Intravenous Immunoglobulin, and Corticosteroid Therapies: Association with Novel RANBP2 Variant
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857578/
SHA: ef6638accc1ef599ad1aafd47b3a86f2b904cc76
Authors: Alawadhi, Abdulla; Saint-Martin, Christine; Bhanji, Farhan; Srour, Myriam; Atkinson, Jeffrey; Sébire, Guillaume
Date: 2018-03-12
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00130
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) is considered as a rare form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis characterized by fulminant encephalopathy with hemorrhagic necrosis and most often fatal outcome. OBJECTIVE: To report the association with Ran Binding Protein (RANBP2) gene variant and the response to decompressive craniectomy and high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in life-threatening AHEM. DESIGN: Single case study. CASE REPORT: A 6-year-old girl known to have sickle cell disease (SCD) presented an acquired demyelinating syndrome (ADS) with diplopia due to sudden unilateral fourth nerve palsy. She received five pulses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day). Two weeks after steroid weaning, she developed right hemiplegia and coma. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a left frontal necrotico-hemorrhagic lesion and new multifocal areas of demyelination. She underwent decompressive craniotomy and evacuation of an ongoing left frontoparietal hemorrhage. Comprehensive investigations ruled out vascular and infectious process. The neurological deterioration stopped concomitantly with combined neurosurgical drainage of the hematoma, decompressive craniotomy, IVMP, and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). She developed during the following months Crohn disease and sclerosing cholangitis. After 2-year follow-up, there was no new neurological manifestation. The patient still suffered right hemiplegia and aphasia, but was able to walk. Cognitive/behavioral abilities significantly recovered. A heterozygous novel rare missense variant (c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu) was identified in RANBP2, a gene associated with acute necrotizing encephalopathy. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells. CONCLUSION: In any ADS occurring in the context of SCD and/or autoimmune condition, we recommend to slowly wean steroids and to closely monitor the patient after weaning to quickly treat any recurrence of neurological symptom with IVMP. This case report, in addition to others, stresses the likely efficacy of combined craniotomy, IVIG, and IVMP treatments in AHEM. RANBP2 mutations may sensitize the brain to inflammation and predispose to AHEM.
Text: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) or acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis is considered a rare and extremely severe form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). AHEM is characterized by an acute and rapidly progressive encephalopathy including hemorrhagic necrosis of the parenchyma of the central nervous system. It is usually fatal (1) (2) (3) . Many treatment options have been used including intravenous (IV) steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), and plasmapheresis (4) . There have been few reports of survival following early intervention with high-dose corticosteroid therapy and/or decompressive craniotomy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .
RANBP2, a nuclear pore protein, has numerous roles in the cell cycle. RANBP2 is associated with microtubules and mitochondria suggesting roles in intracellular protein trafficking or energy maintenance and homeostasis of neuronal cells. RANBP2 mutations have been reported in acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) which could present with coma, convulsions, and encephalopathy. The hallmark of ANE is multiple, symmetric brain lesions located in the thalami bilaterally, putamina, deep periventricular white matter, cerebellum, and brainstem. It could be triggered by a viral infection in previously healthy children (10) .
We report a new case of AHEM associated to a Ran Binding Protein (RANBP)-2 variant and responsive to combined craniectomy, intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP), and IVIG as inaugural manifestation of multisystemic autoimmunity in a girl with sickle cell disease (SCD).
A 6-year-old girl known for SCD treated on folic acid and hydroxyurea was admitted for new-onset diplopia [day 0 (D0): refers to the start of the diplopia] 6 weeks after respiratory tract infection due to rhinovirus. She was diagnosed with a fourth nerve palsy secondary to an acquired demyelinating syndrome. The initial brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed at D5 after onset of neurological symptom showed left midbrain and pontine edema with expansion of the brainstem, right caudate nucleus, and scattered supratentorial white matter foci of high T2/FLAIR signal (Figure 1 ). Brain MR angiography (MRA) showed a normal appearing circle of Willis. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained by lumber puncture was normal (WBC 1 cells/μl, RBC 0 cells/μl, glucose 2.9 mmol/L, protein 0.18 g/L, and absent oligoclonal bands). The infectious workup including blood bacterial culture, CSF bacterial and viral cultures, nasopharyngeal aspirate (tested for Influenza A, Influenza B, Parainfluenza 1-2-3, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus OC43, Metapneumovirus, Enterovirus, and Rhinovirus), and serologies for Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, HTLV I, HTLV II, HIV1, and Lyme disease were negative. Bartonella Henselae IgG was positive (1:1,280) reflecting a previously acquired common and self-limited infection in our area. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) were positive (1:160). B12 and folate levels were normal. Smooth muscle antibodies were negative. Anti-mitochondrial antibodies were positive. Sedimentation rate was 65 mm/h. She was treated with five doses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day) followed by 9 days of oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day). At discharge, her neurological exam was significant only for vertical diplopia.
She presented 1 month later with 5 days of upper respiratory tract infection symptoms, fever, headache, and a rapidly progressive right-hand weakness (D30) with normal alertness. She had normal blood pressure (120/81 mmHg). She was started on cefotaxime, vancomycin, and acyclovir. White cell count was 13.4 × 10 9 /L, hemoglobin was 7.8 g/L, and platelets were 239 × 10 9 /L. While in the MRI machine (D30) she deteriorated with vomiting and reduced level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale dropped from 15 to 8 over 30 min). Brain MRI showed a rapid progression over a few sequences of an active bleed involving both superficial and deep gray matter as well as subcortical white matter of the left hemisphere anterior quadrant. Brain MRA was normal (Figures 2A-F) . The patient was immediately brought out of the magnet and her physical exam demonstrated unequal dilated pupils. She received IV mannitol and hypertonic saline for the management of acute intracranial hypertension/ herniation and was taken for surgery. She underwent left frontotemporoparietal decompressive craniotomy, evacuation of left frontoparietal intracerebral hemorrhage, and insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD). Upon opening the skull, there was significant dural tension, and on opening the dura mater, there was a large amount of bleeding, in addition to brain swelling and necrosis. Estimated blood loss was 3.5 L. She received 8 units of packed red blood cells, 3 units of cryoprecipitate, 6 units of fresh frozen plasma, and 3 units of platelets. Coagulation profile showed international normalization ratio = 3.38, prothrombin time = 51.2 s, and partial thromboplastin time = 122 s. An intraventricular pressure monitor was inserted. She returned with stable vitals to PICU. At D31, the CT scan showed extensive multi-compartmental bleed involving the left frontoparietal lobes, the interhemispheric fissure, and the left hemispheric arachnoid spaces. New white matter lesions were detected in the left posterior parietal and occipital lobes and in the left caudate head. MRI at D33 showed interval worsening with disseminated gray and white matter non-hemorrhagic lesions in the right cerebral and both cerebellar hemispheres, bilateral deep gray nuclei, as well as new necrotic non-hemorrhagic lesions in the left hemisphere (Figures 2G-I) . She was started on IVMP (30 mg/kg/ day for 5 days) and IVIG (1 g/kg/day for 2 days). Repeat MRI at D9 showed no new parenchymal hemorrhage and partial resolution of the non-hemorrhagic lesions (Figure 3) . Prednisolone was tapered course over 6 weeks. At discharge (D71), she was able to say a few words and had better power of her right side. Brain MRI performed 3 months later showed complete resolution of the non-hemorrhagic non-necrotic lesions, mainly seen in the right cerebral hemisphere and the cerebellum.
Brain biopsy of the hematoma, some small vessels, cortex, and white matter showed necrotic area, reactive and non-specific findings which could be entirely explained by compressive changes adjacent to a hematoma. There was diffuse microglial activation and signs of early microinfarcts. Blood, CSF and urine culture, and PCR (HSV1/2) were negative for bacteria and for viruses. CSF obtained through craniotomy and EVD performed at D32 showed elevated proteins 2.56 g/L, glucose 3.6 mmol/L, white blood cells 9 cells/μL, and red blood cells 1,341 cells/μL. ANA and anti-DNA antibody were negative.
Anti-extractable nuclear antigens (SSA-RO, SSB-LA, smith, RNP) were negative. Serum autoimmune antibodies panel (NMO, NMDAR, AMPA I/II, GAB, MAG, VGCC, MOG, YO, HU, RI) were negative but GAD antibody was slightly positive, possibly due to the IVIG infusion. EBV showed no signs of recent infection.
After discharge, the patient was started on regular transfusion exchange. Six months later, the patient was diagnosed to have Crohn's disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Two years later, the patient still suffers right hemiparesis but is able to walk without support. She presents an expressive aphasia. Her intellectual abilities are average, or below the mean but in the normal range, except for the speed of information processing, verbal working memory, and some elaborated executive functions.
A gene panel ( Table 1 ) targeting inflammatory disorders and post-infectious necrotic encephalopathies found a heterozygous RANBP2 missense mutation (NM_006267.4, c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu). This mutation has not been previously reported in the HGMD database. This variant has been observed at a frequency of <0.01% across the entire Broad ExAC dataset of individuals without severe childhood onset disease (6/117,118 alleles). Analysis of amino acid conservation indicates that the wild-type amino acid Lys1665 is conserved in 59 of 60 mammals examined, including 12 of 12 primates, and in 25 of 34 nonmammalian vertebrates increasing the likelihood that a change at this position might not be tolerated. In silico tools predict that this variant is damaging (SIFT and Align GVGD).
Several differential diagnoses of acute encephalopathy in a patient with sickle cell anemia can be considered. An infectious encephalitis, including herpes encephalitis, was ruled out by blood and CSF bacterial and viral cultures and negative HSV I/ II PCR. Nasopharyngeal aspirate was negative for viruses. Some infections have been previously associated with necrotizing encephalitis such as Influenza A (11) . SCD patients are prone to ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes (12) . Primary hemorrhagic stroke is uncommon in pediatric SCD. Most cases were from adults and have been described in the context of previous ischemic stroke, aneurysms, low hemoglobin, acute chest syndrome, and hypertransfusions. Moreover, although hemorrhagic stroke has been described in SCD patients receiving transfusion or corticosteroids, it was in the context of elevated blood pressure which was not present in our case (13) . This was ruled out as the MRI findings were not consistent with a specific vascular territory and normal arterial and venous flows were shown on vascular imaging. Another differential is posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome which has been reported in SCD patients (13) (14) (15) (16) . However, it is unlikely in our case due to the severity of the brain injury and the absence of classic precipitating factors of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome such as high blood pressure. Macrophage activation syndrome could also lead to acute necrotic brain injury. However, it is associated to high ferritin and low triglycerides at the time of the encephalopathy, other multisystemic injuries, typical neuropathological findings, and recurrence over time, which were not noted in our patient (17) . Parvovirus B19 has been described to cause encephalopathy in sickle cell patients. It is associated with aplastic anemia. It caused punctate areas of hemorrhages in the basal ganglia, periventricular white matter, and mainly along the posterior parietal cortex. This was attributed to parvovirus B19-induced vasculitis (18) . In our patient, there was no sign of aplasia or any neuroradiological finding of parvovirus B19 infection. Finally, acute encephalitis has been observed in SCD patients in the context of arterial hypoxemia from fat embolism, pulmonary embolism, sudden anemia, or acute chest syndrome due to pneumonia (19) . This was ruled out as the patient did not have clinical or radiological signs of acute chest syndrome or embolism and there was no arterial hypoxemia.
Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis has been described in pediatric patients following ADEM or ADEM-like episodes (20, 21) . AHEM is the most plausible diagnosis in our patients based on the clinical and radiological presentation, the preceding ADEM-like episode, and the exclusion of other etiologies of acute encephalopathy. Other patients with AHEM have been described in the SCD context (7, 19) . Many treatment options have been used to treat AHEM; of these, IV steroids have been associated with survival following aggressive, high-dose corticosteroid therapy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (22) (23) (24) (25) .
Autosomal dominant mutations (with incomplete penetrance) in RANBP2 have been associated with susceptibility to infectioninduced necrotizing encephalopathy (26, 27) . Previously healthy patients with pathogenic mutations in RANBP2 can present acutely with encephalopathy and convulsions in the context of an infection, with brain imaging revealing involvement of the brainstem, thalami, putamina, cerebellum and external capsules, and claustrum (10) . Our patient has a similar presentation and imaging features as infection-induced necrotizing encephalopathy, including bilateral thalamic involvement. The rare heterozygous previously unreported variant we identified in RANBP2 affects a very conserved aminoacid and is predicted deleterious using in silico tools (a prediction tool performing a fast bioinformatics analysis which can predict the pathogenicity of a variant based on the change to an amino acid). It is possible that this variant is pathogenic and responsible for the clinical phenotype. There is an overlap between the diagnostic criteria of AHEM and those of acute hemorrhagic encephalopathy (25, 26) making possible that both entities might be part of the same pathophysiological continuum. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells (28) . Hence, RANBP2 dysfunction might make neuronal cells much vulnerable to energy failure and necrosis when exposed to inflammatory or other stresses, such as those implicated in AHEM.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of our institutional ethic committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants for the publication.
All authors participated in gathering the data, designing the article, and discussing and editing the manuscript.
aCKNoWleDgMeNts We thank Dr. S. Abish, Dr. N. Ahmed, and Mrs. C. Guiraut for their help. We are grateful to the Hoppenheim Fund from the Montreal Children Hospital Foundation.
The first author of this article received a scholarship from the Hoppenheim Fund, Montreal Children Hospital Foundation (2016). This work was supported by grants from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (grant number: G-14-0005756), and Foundation of Stars. | 1,561 | What could trigger acute necrotizing encephalopathy? | {
"answer_start": [
3931
],
"text": [
"viral infection in previously healthy children"
]
} | 3,037 |
532 | Acute Hemorrhagic Encephalitis Responding to Combined Decompressive Craniectomy, Intravenous Immunoglobulin, and Corticosteroid Therapies: Association with Novel RANBP2 Variant
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857578/
SHA: ef6638accc1ef599ad1aafd47b3a86f2b904cc76
Authors: Alawadhi, Abdulla; Saint-Martin, Christine; Bhanji, Farhan; Srour, Myriam; Atkinson, Jeffrey; Sébire, Guillaume
Date: 2018-03-12
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00130
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) is considered as a rare form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis characterized by fulminant encephalopathy with hemorrhagic necrosis and most often fatal outcome. OBJECTIVE: To report the association with Ran Binding Protein (RANBP2) gene variant and the response to decompressive craniectomy and high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in life-threatening AHEM. DESIGN: Single case study. CASE REPORT: A 6-year-old girl known to have sickle cell disease (SCD) presented an acquired demyelinating syndrome (ADS) with diplopia due to sudden unilateral fourth nerve palsy. She received five pulses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day). Two weeks after steroid weaning, she developed right hemiplegia and coma. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a left frontal necrotico-hemorrhagic lesion and new multifocal areas of demyelination. She underwent decompressive craniotomy and evacuation of an ongoing left frontoparietal hemorrhage. Comprehensive investigations ruled out vascular and infectious process. The neurological deterioration stopped concomitantly with combined neurosurgical drainage of the hematoma, decompressive craniotomy, IVMP, and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). She developed during the following months Crohn disease and sclerosing cholangitis. After 2-year follow-up, there was no new neurological manifestation. The patient still suffered right hemiplegia and aphasia, but was able to walk. Cognitive/behavioral abilities significantly recovered. A heterozygous novel rare missense variant (c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu) was identified in RANBP2, a gene associated with acute necrotizing encephalopathy. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells. CONCLUSION: In any ADS occurring in the context of SCD and/or autoimmune condition, we recommend to slowly wean steroids and to closely monitor the patient after weaning to quickly treat any recurrence of neurological symptom with IVMP. This case report, in addition to others, stresses the likely efficacy of combined craniotomy, IVIG, and IVMP treatments in AHEM. RANBP2 mutations may sensitize the brain to inflammation and predispose to AHEM.
Text: Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis (AHEM) or acute hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis is considered a rare and extremely severe form of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). AHEM is characterized by an acute and rapidly progressive encephalopathy including hemorrhagic necrosis of the parenchyma of the central nervous system. It is usually fatal (1) (2) (3) . Many treatment options have been used including intravenous (IV) steroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), and plasmapheresis (4) . There have been few reports of survival following early intervention with high-dose corticosteroid therapy and/or decompressive craniotomy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .
RANBP2, a nuclear pore protein, has numerous roles in the cell cycle. RANBP2 is associated with microtubules and mitochondria suggesting roles in intracellular protein trafficking or energy maintenance and homeostasis of neuronal cells. RANBP2 mutations have been reported in acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) which could present with coma, convulsions, and encephalopathy. The hallmark of ANE is multiple, symmetric brain lesions located in the thalami bilaterally, putamina, deep periventricular white matter, cerebellum, and brainstem. It could be triggered by a viral infection in previously healthy children (10) .
We report a new case of AHEM associated to a Ran Binding Protein (RANBP)-2 variant and responsive to combined craniectomy, intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP), and IVIG as inaugural manifestation of multisystemic autoimmunity in a girl with sickle cell disease (SCD).
A 6-year-old girl known for SCD treated on folic acid and hydroxyurea was admitted for new-onset diplopia [day 0 (D0): refers to the start of the diplopia] 6 weeks after respiratory tract infection due to rhinovirus. She was diagnosed with a fourth nerve palsy secondary to an acquired demyelinating syndrome. The initial brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed at D5 after onset of neurological symptom showed left midbrain and pontine edema with expansion of the brainstem, right caudate nucleus, and scattered supratentorial white matter foci of high T2/FLAIR signal (Figure 1 ). Brain MR angiography (MRA) showed a normal appearing circle of Willis. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) obtained by lumber puncture was normal (WBC 1 cells/μl, RBC 0 cells/μl, glucose 2.9 mmol/L, protein 0.18 g/L, and absent oligoclonal bands). The infectious workup including blood bacterial culture, CSF bacterial and viral cultures, nasopharyngeal aspirate (tested for Influenza A, Influenza B, Parainfluenza 1-2-3, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Adenovirus, Coronavirus 229E, Coronavirus OC43, Metapneumovirus, Enterovirus, and Rhinovirus), and serologies for Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, HTLV I, HTLV II, HIV1, and Lyme disease were negative. Bartonella Henselae IgG was positive (1:1,280) reflecting a previously acquired common and self-limited infection in our area. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) were positive (1:160). B12 and folate levels were normal. Smooth muscle antibodies were negative. Anti-mitochondrial antibodies were positive. Sedimentation rate was 65 mm/h. She was treated with five doses of IVMP (30 mg/kg/day) followed by 9 days of oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day). At discharge, her neurological exam was significant only for vertical diplopia.
She presented 1 month later with 5 days of upper respiratory tract infection symptoms, fever, headache, and a rapidly progressive right-hand weakness (D30) with normal alertness. She had normal blood pressure (120/81 mmHg). She was started on cefotaxime, vancomycin, and acyclovir. White cell count was 13.4 × 10 9 /L, hemoglobin was 7.8 g/L, and platelets were 239 × 10 9 /L. While in the MRI machine (D30) she deteriorated with vomiting and reduced level of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale dropped from 15 to 8 over 30 min). Brain MRI showed a rapid progression over a few sequences of an active bleed involving both superficial and deep gray matter as well as subcortical white matter of the left hemisphere anterior quadrant. Brain MRA was normal (Figures 2A-F) . The patient was immediately brought out of the magnet and her physical exam demonstrated unequal dilated pupils. She received IV mannitol and hypertonic saline for the management of acute intracranial hypertension/ herniation and was taken for surgery. She underwent left frontotemporoparietal decompressive craniotomy, evacuation of left frontoparietal intracerebral hemorrhage, and insertion of an external ventricular drain (EVD). Upon opening the skull, there was significant dural tension, and on opening the dura mater, there was a large amount of bleeding, in addition to brain swelling and necrosis. Estimated blood loss was 3.5 L. She received 8 units of packed red blood cells, 3 units of cryoprecipitate, 6 units of fresh frozen plasma, and 3 units of platelets. Coagulation profile showed international normalization ratio = 3.38, prothrombin time = 51.2 s, and partial thromboplastin time = 122 s. An intraventricular pressure monitor was inserted. She returned with stable vitals to PICU. At D31, the CT scan showed extensive multi-compartmental bleed involving the left frontoparietal lobes, the interhemispheric fissure, and the left hemispheric arachnoid spaces. New white matter lesions were detected in the left posterior parietal and occipital lobes and in the left caudate head. MRI at D33 showed interval worsening with disseminated gray and white matter non-hemorrhagic lesions in the right cerebral and both cerebellar hemispheres, bilateral deep gray nuclei, as well as new necrotic non-hemorrhagic lesions in the left hemisphere (Figures 2G-I) . She was started on IVMP (30 mg/kg/ day for 5 days) and IVIG (1 g/kg/day for 2 days). Repeat MRI at D9 showed no new parenchymal hemorrhage and partial resolution of the non-hemorrhagic lesions (Figure 3) . Prednisolone was tapered course over 6 weeks. At discharge (D71), she was able to say a few words and had better power of her right side. Brain MRI performed 3 months later showed complete resolution of the non-hemorrhagic non-necrotic lesions, mainly seen in the right cerebral hemisphere and the cerebellum.
Brain biopsy of the hematoma, some small vessels, cortex, and white matter showed necrotic area, reactive and non-specific findings which could be entirely explained by compressive changes adjacent to a hematoma. There was diffuse microglial activation and signs of early microinfarcts. Blood, CSF and urine culture, and PCR (HSV1/2) were negative for bacteria and for viruses. CSF obtained through craniotomy and EVD performed at D32 showed elevated proteins 2.56 g/L, glucose 3.6 mmol/L, white blood cells 9 cells/μL, and red blood cells 1,341 cells/μL. ANA and anti-DNA antibody were negative.
Anti-extractable nuclear antigens (SSA-RO, SSB-LA, smith, RNP) were negative. Serum autoimmune antibodies panel (NMO, NMDAR, AMPA I/II, GAB, MAG, VGCC, MOG, YO, HU, RI) were negative but GAD antibody was slightly positive, possibly due to the IVIG infusion. EBV showed no signs of recent infection.
After discharge, the patient was started on regular transfusion exchange. Six months later, the patient was diagnosed to have Crohn's disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Two years later, the patient still suffers right hemiparesis but is able to walk without support. She presents an expressive aphasia. Her intellectual abilities are average, or below the mean but in the normal range, except for the speed of information processing, verbal working memory, and some elaborated executive functions.
A gene panel ( Table 1 ) targeting inflammatory disorders and post-infectious necrotic encephalopathies found a heterozygous RANBP2 missense mutation (NM_006267.4, c.4993A>G, p.Lys1665Glu). This mutation has not been previously reported in the HGMD database. This variant has been observed at a frequency of <0.01% across the entire Broad ExAC dataset of individuals without severe childhood onset disease (6/117,118 alleles). Analysis of amino acid conservation indicates that the wild-type amino acid Lys1665 is conserved in 59 of 60 mammals examined, including 12 of 12 primates, and in 25 of 34 nonmammalian vertebrates increasing the likelihood that a change at this position might not be tolerated. In silico tools predict that this variant is damaging (SIFT and Align GVGD).
Several differential diagnoses of acute encephalopathy in a patient with sickle cell anemia can be considered. An infectious encephalitis, including herpes encephalitis, was ruled out by blood and CSF bacterial and viral cultures and negative HSV I/ II PCR. Nasopharyngeal aspirate was negative for viruses. Some infections have been previously associated with necrotizing encephalitis such as Influenza A (11) . SCD patients are prone to ischemic or hemorrhagic strokes (12) . Primary hemorrhagic stroke is uncommon in pediatric SCD. Most cases were from adults and have been described in the context of previous ischemic stroke, aneurysms, low hemoglobin, acute chest syndrome, and hypertransfusions. Moreover, although hemorrhagic stroke has been described in SCD patients receiving transfusion or corticosteroids, it was in the context of elevated blood pressure which was not present in our case (13) . This was ruled out as the MRI findings were not consistent with a specific vascular territory and normal arterial and venous flows were shown on vascular imaging. Another differential is posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome which has been reported in SCD patients (13) (14) (15) (16) . However, it is unlikely in our case due to the severity of the brain injury and the absence of classic precipitating factors of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome such as high blood pressure. Macrophage activation syndrome could also lead to acute necrotic brain injury. However, it is associated to high ferritin and low triglycerides at the time of the encephalopathy, other multisystemic injuries, typical neuropathological findings, and recurrence over time, which were not noted in our patient (17) . Parvovirus B19 has been described to cause encephalopathy in sickle cell patients. It is associated with aplastic anemia. It caused punctate areas of hemorrhages in the basal ganglia, periventricular white matter, and mainly along the posterior parietal cortex. This was attributed to parvovirus B19-induced vasculitis (18) . In our patient, there was no sign of aplasia or any neuroradiological finding of parvovirus B19 infection. Finally, acute encephalitis has been observed in SCD patients in the context of arterial hypoxemia from fat embolism, pulmonary embolism, sudden anemia, or acute chest syndrome due to pneumonia (19) . This was ruled out as the patient did not have clinical or radiological signs of acute chest syndrome or embolism and there was no arterial hypoxemia.
Acute hemorrhagic encephalomyelitis has been described in pediatric patients following ADEM or ADEM-like episodes (20, 21) . AHEM is the most plausible diagnosis in our patients based on the clinical and radiological presentation, the preceding ADEM-like episode, and the exclusion of other etiologies of acute encephalopathy. Other patients with AHEM have been described in the SCD context (7, 19) . Many treatment options have been used to treat AHEM; of these, IV steroids have been associated with survival following aggressive, high-dose corticosteroid therapy (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (22) (23) (24) (25) .
Autosomal dominant mutations (with incomplete penetrance) in RANBP2 have been associated with susceptibility to infectioninduced necrotizing encephalopathy (26, 27) . Previously healthy patients with pathogenic mutations in RANBP2 can present acutely with encephalopathy and convulsions in the context of an infection, with brain imaging revealing involvement of the brainstem, thalami, putamina, cerebellum and external capsules, and claustrum (10) . Our patient has a similar presentation and imaging features as infection-induced necrotizing encephalopathy, including bilateral thalamic involvement. The rare heterozygous previously unreported variant we identified in RANBP2 affects a very conserved aminoacid and is predicted deleterious using in silico tools (a prediction tool performing a fast bioinformatics analysis which can predict the pathogenicity of a variant based on the change to an amino acid). It is possible that this variant is pathogenic and responsible for the clinical phenotype. There is an overlap between the diagnostic criteria of AHEM and those of acute hemorrhagic encephalopathy (25, 26) making possible that both entities might be part of the same pathophysiological continuum. RANBP2 is a protein playing an important role in the energy homeostasis of neuronal cells (28) . Hence, RANBP2 dysfunction might make neuronal cells much vulnerable to energy failure and necrosis when exposed to inflammatory or other stresses, such as those implicated in AHEM.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of our institutional ethic committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants for the publication.
All authors participated in gathering the data, designing the article, and discussing and editing the manuscript.
aCKNoWleDgMeNts We thank Dr. S. Abish, Dr. N. Ahmed, and Mrs. C. Guiraut for their help. We are grateful to the Hoppenheim Fund from the Montreal Children Hospital Foundation.
The first author of this article received a scholarship from the Hoppenheim Fund, Montreal Children Hospital Foundation (2016). This work was supported by grants from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (grant number: G-14-0005756), and Foundation of Stars. | 1,561 | When did she present with rapidly progressive right-hand weakness? | {
"answer_start": [
6040
],
"text": [
"1 month later"
]
} | 3,038 |
533 | Isothermal Amplification Using a Chemical Heating Device for Point-of-Care Detection of HIV-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285652/
SHA: ef7110a9022bac2e50c995b0f6b826ff071e48f8
Authors: Curtis, Kelly A.; Rudolph, Donna L.; Nejad, Irene; Singleton, Jered; Beddoe, Andy; Weigl, Bernhard; LaBarre, Paul; Owen, S. Michele
Date: 2012-02-23
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031432
License: cc0
Abstract: BACKGROUND: To date, the use of traditional nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for detection of HIV-1 DNA or RNA has been restricted to laboratory settings due to time, equipment, and technical expertise requirements. The availability of a rapid NAAT with applicability for resource-limited or point-of-care (POC) settings would fill a great need in HIV diagnostics, allowing for timely diagnosis or confirmation of infection status, as well as facilitating the diagnosis of acute infection, screening and evaluation of infants born to HIV-infected mothers. Isothermal amplification methods, such as reverse-transcription, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), exhibit characteristics that are ideal for POC settings, since they are typically quicker, easier to perform, and allow for integration into low-tech, portable heating devices. METHODOLOGY/SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS: In this study, we evaluated the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) heating devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water. The NINA heating devices exhibited stable temperatures throughout the amplification reaction and consistent amplification results between three separate devices and a thermalcycler. The performance of the NINA heaters was validated using whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected patients. CONCLUSION: The RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a chemical heating device provides a portable, rapid and robust NAAT platform that has the potential to facilitate HIV-1 testing in resource-limited settings and POC.
Text: HIV-1 diagnostic tests are held to a high standard of performance, as diagnosis has a direct impact on patient care and reduction of transmission. Despite technological advances in the field of HIV diagnostics and the high sensitivity and specificity associated with most HIV diagnostic tests that are currently available, it is estimated that approximately 20% of HIV-infected individuals living in the United States remain undiagnosed [1] . Furthermore, testing sites have reported as many as 35 to 50% of individuals with an initial positive test result will not return for a confirmatory diagnosis if follow-up laboratory testing is required [2] . Rapid HIV antibodybased tests, which can be performed with minimal training and typically provide results in under 30 minutes [3] , have facilitated HIV testing at the point-of-care and subsequently increased the numbers of individuals aware of their serostatus [4] . Rapid tests are currently a key component of HIV screening at the point-of-care (POC), significantly expanding the diagnostic capabilities of testing sites in developed countries, as well as resource-limited settings.
Despite the advances made by the widespread availability of rapid tests, all antibody-based tests for the detection of HIV exhibit some limitations. HIV-specific antibody typically begins to appear around three weeks post-infection, allowing for detection by most antibody-based assays within 3-6 weeks [3, 5] . The window of time prior to or during early seroconversion may lead to false-negative test results in recently infected individuals. Additionally, accurate diagnosis of infants born to HIV-infected mothers can be challenging if based solely on antibody positivity, since vertically transferred maternal antibodies may persist for 12-18 months after birth [6, 7] . For confirmatory diagnosis of early HIV infection or infant diagnosis, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are preferred, as HIV-1 RNA can be detected as early as 10-12 days post infection and HIV-1 DNA and/or RNA are definitive indicators of active infection [5] . In their current form, however, NAAT's are not feasible for POC testing, because they are timeconsuming, expensive, and technically complicated. To date, the Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., http://www.fda.gov/ BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/ LicensedProductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/InfectiousDisease/ UCM080466) is the only FDA-approved NAAT for the diagnosis or confirmation of HIV-1 infection and it is only suitable for laboratory testing.
To meet the needs of HIV-1 diagnosis at the POC, a rapid NAAT that can be performed with minimal training, limited equipment, and a relatively short turnaround time (,1 hour)is desirable [8] . The development of a rapid NAAT has proven to be especially challenging since the technology involved in simplifying the test procedure often equates to increased equipment and material costs [8] . Additionally, the reduction in technical complexity should not compromise test sensitivity and specificity. For increased applicability at the POC, an increasing number of novel isothermal amplification techniques have been developed [9] . Isothermal amplification is an attractive alternative to traditional PCR or RT-PCR since thermalcycling is not required, allowing for greater versatility in terms of heating or amplification devices. One such amplification method, termed Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) [10] , has been optimized for the detection of DNA and/or RNA (RT-LAMP) from a wide range of bacterial and viral pathogens [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] , including HIV [20, 21] .
LAMP or RT-LAMP exhibits several characteristics that are ideal for integration into a rapid nucleic-acid based diagnostic test. The amplification reaction requires six primers specific for eight separate regions within the target sequence, contributing to the high specificity of the amplification method. Amplified material can typically be detected within 15-60 minutes when incubated at a constant reaction temperature of 60-65uC [22] . LAMP has also proven to be less sensitive to biological inhibitors than PCR [23, 24] , which enables direct amplification from clinical specimens, thereby eliminating the need for an additional nucleic acid extraction step. Direct amplification from plasma, whole blood, and oral fluid has previously been demonstrated for HIV-1 [20, 21, 25] . Lastly, immediate visual detection of amplified products is facilitated by the large amount of DNA that is generated by each reaction. Several groups have incorporated fluorescent detection methods into the LAMP assay for real-time or immediate naked-eye detection [15, 17, 21, 22, 26] .
The simplicity and isothermal nature of the LAMP procedure opens the door for the evaluation of low-tech integrated devices or novel heating elements, which are appropriate for low-resource settings, where costly equipment and electricity cannot be obtained. In this study, the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay was evaluated using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water [27, 28] . We demonstrated the temperature stability of the NINA heating devices and feasibility for POC testing of whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected individuals.
Prototype NINA heaters were designed and provided by Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH, Seattle, WA), as described [27, 28] . Briefly, an amplification temperature of approximately 60uC was provided by the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide (CaO; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and water. The heating devices, containing the chemical reaction, were designed using thermally insulated, stainless-steel canisters with plastic screw-top lids (Fig. 1) . The lids were modified to contain three sample wells that fit standard 200 ml PCR tubes and were filled with a proprietary phase-change material (PCM) that was used to buffer the heat derived from the exothermic reaction, thereby providing a constant temperature. Lastly, plastic caps containing foam insulation were designed to fit on the top of the canister lids. The thermal profiles of the sample wells were measured and recorded using a digital thermometer (DaqPRO 5300 Data recorder; OMEGA Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CT).
DNA and RNA linearity panels were prepared to determine the sensitivity of the HIV-specific RT-LAMP assay. A DNA panel was generated from DNA extracted from the human monocytic cell line OM-10.1 [29] , using a QIAamp DNA blood mini kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA). Cell count was used to quantify the input DNA copy number, as a single integrated provirus is contained in each cell [29] . The extracted DNA was diluted tenfold in RNase-free water to create a linearity panel, ranging from 10 5 copies/ml to 10 3 copies/ml. An RNA linearity panel was obtained commercially (PRD801; SeraCare Life Sciences, Mil- ford, MA) and ranged from 2.9610 6 copies/ml to 8 copies/ml, as determined by Roche AMPLICOR HIV MONITOR TM v 1.5, Bayer VERSANT HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 Assay, bioMerieux NucliSensH HIV-1 QT, and Abbott Real Time HIV-1 m2000 TM . RNA was extracted from the panel members using a Viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN). Negative controls included DNA extracted from PBMC infected with HIV-2 SLRHC [30] and RNA extracted from HIV-2 NIH-Z purified virus (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc., Columbia, MD).
Whole blood from HIV-1 infected individuals was collected as part of a separate, IRB-approved study [31] , or obtained commercially (SeraCare Life Sciences). All HIV-positive samples were confirmed using the following tests: Genetic Systems HIV-1/ HIV-2 plus O EIA (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Redmond, WA), GS HIV-1 Western blot (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., San Diego, CA), and Amplicor HIV-1 DNA assay (Roche Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ ). Viral and proviral loads are unknown, since the samples were tested with qualitative, nucleic acid-based assays. All clinical specimens evaluated in this study were obtained from individuals infected with subtype B HIV-1 virus. As a negative control, HIV-1 seronegative blood samples (SeraCare Life Sciences) were included in every experiment involving whole blood. A positive control included HIV-1 seronegative blood spiked with 5610 6 virus particles/ml of HIV-1 BaL (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc.).
HIV-1-specific RT-LAMP primers were designed to recognize a conserved sequence within the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene. The six primers required for the RT-LAMP reaction, forward outer (F3), backward outer (B3), forward inner (FIP), backward inner (BIP), and the loop primers (LoopF and LoopB), were designed using the PrimerExplorer V4 software (Eiken Chemical Co. Ltd.; http:// primerexplorer.jp/e/). The LAMP primers and amplification cycle have been described in detail by Nagamine et al. [32] . Additional modifications included a linker sequence of four thymidines inserted between the F2 and F1c sequences of the FIP primer, as described [20] , and the addition of the fluorescent molecule HEX to the 59 end of the LoopF primer. The labeled primer, along with a quencher probe, allowed for immediate visual detection of amplified products [21] . The quencher probe consisted of the complementary sequence of the LoopF primer with Black Hole Quencher-1 (BHQ-1) added to the 39 end. The HIV-1 HXB2 sequence (GenBank accession number AF033819) was used as the reference for generating the RT-LAMP primers. The sequences of the HIV-1 RT-specific primers and quencher are listed in Table 1 .
The RT-LAMP reaction was performed using the following reaction mix: 0.2 mM (final concentration) of each F3 and B3 primers, 1.6 mM of each FIP and BIP primers, 0.8 mM of each LoopF and HEX-LoopB primers, 0.8 M betaine (Sigma-Aldrich), 10 mM MgSO 4 , 1.4 mM dNTPs, 16 ThermoPol reaction buffer (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA), 16 U Bst DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) and 2 U AMV reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The reaction was carried out in a total volume of 25 ml for amplification of extracted nucleic acid, 10 ml of which constituted the sample. For amplification of whole blood specimens, a 100 ml reaction volume was used to facilitate visual detection of amplified products. Whole blood was added directly into the reaction at a total volume of 40 ml, following a 1:4 dilution with red blood cell lysis buffer (2.5 mM KHCO 3 , 37.5 mM NH 4 Cl, and 0.025 mM EDTA), as previously described [21] . The reaction mixture was incubated at 60uC for 60 minutes, using a GeneAmpH PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) or the NINA heaters. For reactions amplified in the thermalcylcer, an additional two minute heating step of 80uC was added at the end of the amplification cycle to terminate the reaction.
The reaction tubes were evaluated for the presence of amplification, following addition of the quencher probe at a 2:1 ratio of quencher to labeled-primer, as previously described [21] . Amplification was determined visually by observing fluorescence in the reaction tubes, using the UV lamp from a ChemiDoc XRS system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). Amplification was confirmed by electrophoresis using a 1.2% agarose gel containing SYBRH Safe gel stain (Invitrogen), which was subsequently visualized using the ChemiDoc XRS system.
To compare temperature and amplification consistency, three NINA heaters were tested in parallel. The heating reaction was initiated by adding 18 g of CaO to each NINA canister, followed by 6 ml of water. The lid of each canister was then sealed to contain the exothermic reaction. After adding 200 ml of water to each of the sample wells, temperature recording was initiated. Reaction tubes were added to the sample wells once each reaction chamber reached a temperature of 58.5uC. For all samples incubated in the NINA heater, 15 ml of mineral oil was added to the reaction tube during the reaction mix preparation. The samples were incubated in the heaters for a total of 60 minutes. All reactions were carried out in a temperature-controlled laboratory with an ambient temperature of 28uC, unless otherwise stated. Following the amplification reaction, the samples were incubated for two minutes in a heat block set to 80uC. After each amplification cycle, the temperature profile of each device was analyzed by calculating the temperature mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum from the data provided by the DaqPRO 5300.
The stability of the NINA heaters at extreme low and high temperatures was evaluated by placing the canisters in a refrigerator set to 4uC or a 37uC incubator during the length of the amplification reaction. The temperature profiles were recorded and compared to those of reactions that occurred at the laboratory room temperature of 28uC.
To determine the sensitivity of RT-LAMP reaction using RTspecific primers, DNA and RNA linearity panels were tested in a thermalcycler. The limit of detection for HIV-1 DNA was 10 copies/reaction. For the RNA linearity panel, the sample containing 1700 copies/reaction was detected in all of the three replicates, while the sample containing 140 copies/reaction was detected in three out of five replicates (60%). For both DNA and RNA linearity panels, the two samples nearest the limit of detection were chosen to further evaluate the performance consistency between the thermalcycler and NINA heaters. In terms of positivity, the amplification results were consistent between all three heaters and the thermalcycler ( Table 2) . Since the RT-LAMP assay requires a constant temperature of 60uC for the length of the amplification reaction, the temperature profiles of the sample wells were compared over the course of the incubation and between all three NINA heaters. A representative temperature profile is displayed in Figure 2 , showing a steady reaction temperature at or close to 60uC for length of amplification reaction. During the 60 minute incubation, the average temperature for each device was 60.2, 59.8, and 59.7 (Table 3 ). The minimum temperature achieved during the reaction reflects the fact that the temperature of the sample port dropped temporarily after the sample tubes are added to the device, as shown in Figure 2 . The maximum temperature of the devices deviated from the desired reaction temperature of 60uC by less than one degree.
The ability of the NINA heaters to maintain a steady reaction temperature in a wide range of ambient temperatures is essential for POC testing, whether referring to an air-conditioned laboratory or high-temperature field site. To evaluate the performance of the NINA heaters at extreme low or high temperatures, the canisters were placed in a 4uC refrigerator or a 37uC incubator for the length of the amplification reaction. The limit of detection for the DNA and RNA linearity panels was similar to the results obtained in our temperature-controlled laboratory (28uC; Table 2 ). The greatest degree of temperature variation of the sample wells was observed at the ambient temperature of 4uC ( Table 3 ). The average temperature was approximately two degrees lower than the desired reaction temperature of 60uC. Additionally, the temperature of the devices tended to decline from their steady state during the last 20 minutes of the reaction (data not shown). The temperature profiles at the ambient temperature of 37uC, however, were similar to those at 28uC.
Whole blood samples from HIV-1 infected individuals were added directly into the RT-LAMP reaction and tested in the NINA heaters. Positivity of the clinical specimens was consistent between the thermalcycler and devices (Table 4 ). Amplification consistency was most evident with two of the patient samples (patient #4 and #5) that were only positive in one of the three replicates, regardless of the heating device that was used. All HIVnegative blood samples, included in each reaction, were negative (data not shown). A representative experiment using the NINA heaters is displayed in Figure 3 , showing detection by agarose gel and visual identification of fluorescence in the reaction tubes.
In this study, we demonstrate the performance of portable, inexpensive, non-instrumented nucleic acid (NINA) heaters for amplification of HIV-1 using RT-LAMP. The isothermal amplification reaction coupled with a device that generates heat from an exothermic chemical reaction, as opposed to grid electricity or battery power, comprises a point-of-care NAAT that is practical for use in resource-limited settings. The heating devices require minimal training and technical expertise to operate and take approximately 10-15 minutes to reach a reaction temperature of 60uC once the chemical reaction has been initiated [27, 28] . Furthermore, the temperature of the sample wells remain relatively stable at the desired reaction temperature of 60uC throughout the amplification reaction, as demonstrated by the heating profiles and the consistency in amplification between the devices and thermalcycler.
Since point-of-care testing may refer to an air-conditioned laboratory or a field site with high temperatures and humidity, the stability of the temperature generated by the heating devices must be reliable. Though the temperature profiles at a representative cold temperature of 4uC indicated a loss in reaction temperature towards the end of the 60 minute incubation, the temperature fluctuations were not significant enough to affect the amplification reaction. Regardless, this thermal effect could be mitigated with small modifications to the device to reduce heat loss at lower temperatures. It should be possible to extend the temperature range of the NINA heaters to 4uC and below by either adding a larger quantity of heating mixture, better insulation, or both. Of greater concern is the performance of the NINA heaters in hightemperature field sites, where temperature control is not an option.
We demonstrate no difference in the temperature stability of the NINA heaters and amplification consistency at an ambient temperature of 37uC as compared to our temperature-controlled laboratory.
For increased applicability for use at the POC, several modifications can be made to the NINA heaters. The prototype devices evaluated in this study contained only three sample wells; however, up to 16 sample wells can be added to the lid of the insulated canisters for a larger testing volume. In this study, samples were removed from the NINA heaters after the amplification reaction and heated for an additional two minutes in an 80uC heat block to terminate the reaction. While the additional heating step is not necessary to observe the amplified products from extracted nucleic acid, the short, high-temperature incubation facilitates the visual observation of the fluorescent label in the whole blood samples. Modifications may be made to the whole blood sample preparation method to eliminate the need for the heating step. Alternatively, a second temperature-moderating compartment can be added to the alternate end of the NINA canisters, so the samples can be removed from the amplification compartment and reinserted into the 80uC compartment. Lastly, the DaqPRO data recorder was used in this study for validation purposes only and would not be necessary for the final POC product.
The feasibility of using LAMP as a diagnostic method in resource-limited settings has been demonstrated for tuberculosis [33] . To reduce hands-on time and preparation error, the authors describe the use of reaction tubes pre-prepared with lyophilized reaction mix. For POC use, limited sample manipulation and reagent preparation is desired and, therefore, it is anticipated that the test procedure of the end product will include reconstituting the amplification reagents in water and adding the sample directly into the reaction tube. We demonstrate the use of the NINA heaters for amplification directly from whole blood specimens, eliminating the need for a time-consuming, nucleic acid extraction procedure and reducing the volume of sample needed for the amplification reaction. A total volume of 10 ml of whole blood was added to each reaction tube, which can easily be obtained by finger-stick in settings where venipuncture is not feasible. Additionally, our fluorescent detection method enables immediate visualization of amplified products in the absence of specialized equipment. To avoid cross-contamination of amplified material, it is preferred that the reaction tubes remain closed post-amplification. Future modifications will include optimizing the labeledprimer/quencher sequences so that all components can be added into the reaction mix prior to amplification. Due to availability, the Bio-Rad ChemiDoc system was used as the UV source in this study; however, an inexpensive keychain light would be more suitable for naked-eye detection at the POC. For sensitive and specific detection of diverse HIV-1 isolates, including non-B subtypes, identification of the optimal primer set/sets is a key step in the development of the RT-LAMP assay. Although all experiments performed in this study involved subtype B standards and specimens, ongoing research involves the continued development and optimization of RT-LAMP primers based on regions of the HIV-1 genome that are conserved among diverse subtypes. Future studies will include large-scale evaluation of clinical specimens with the optimized RT-LAMP assay and NINA device. In summary, the RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a simplified, chemical heating device exhibits characteristics that are ideal for a rapid NAAT for POC testing. The simplified, portable assay has the potential to fill an important gap in HIV-1 diagnostics, providing immediate knowledge or confirmation of HIV-1 infection status at the POC. | 1,580 | Why have nucleic acid amplification tests been restricted to laboratory settings? | {
"answer_start": [
581
],
"text": [
"time, equipment, and technical expertise requirements"
]
} | 4,434 |
534 | Isothermal Amplification Using a Chemical Heating Device for Point-of-Care Detection of HIV-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285652/
SHA: ef7110a9022bac2e50c995b0f6b826ff071e48f8
Authors: Curtis, Kelly A.; Rudolph, Donna L.; Nejad, Irene; Singleton, Jered; Beddoe, Andy; Weigl, Bernhard; LaBarre, Paul; Owen, S. Michele
Date: 2012-02-23
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031432
License: cc0
Abstract: BACKGROUND: To date, the use of traditional nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for detection of HIV-1 DNA or RNA has been restricted to laboratory settings due to time, equipment, and technical expertise requirements. The availability of a rapid NAAT with applicability for resource-limited or point-of-care (POC) settings would fill a great need in HIV diagnostics, allowing for timely diagnosis or confirmation of infection status, as well as facilitating the diagnosis of acute infection, screening and evaluation of infants born to HIV-infected mothers. Isothermal amplification methods, such as reverse-transcription, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), exhibit characteristics that are ideal for POC settings, since they are typically quicker, easier to perform, and allow for integration into low-tech, portable heating devices. METHODOLOGY/SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS: In this study, we evaluated the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) heating devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water. The NINA heating devices exhibited stable temperatures throughout the amplification reaction and consistent amplification results between three separate devices and a thermalcycler. The performance of the NINA heaters was validated using whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected patients. CONCLUSION: The RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a chemical heating device provides a portable, rapid and robust NAAT platform that has the potential to facilitate HIV-1 testing in resource-limited settings and POC.
Text: HIV-1 diagnostic tests are held to a high standard of performance, as diagnosis has a direct impact on patient care and reduction of transmission. Despite technological advances in the field of HIV diagnostics and the high sensitivity and specificity associated with most HIV diagnostic tests that are currently available, it is estimated that approximately 20% of HIV-infected individuals living in the United States remain undiagnosed [1] . Furthermore, testing sites have reported as many as 35 to 50% of individuals with an initial positive test result will not return for a confirmatory diagnosis if follow-up laboratory testing is required [2] . Rapid HIV antibodybased tests, which can be performed with minimal training and typically provide results in under 30 minutes [3] , have facilitated HIV testing at the point-of-care and subsequently increased the numbers of individuals aware of their serostatus [4] . Rapid tests are currently a key component of HIV screening at the point-of-care (POC), significantly expanding the diagnostic capabilities of testing sites in developed countries, as well as resource-limited settings.
Despite the advances made by the widespread availability of rapid tests, all antibody-based tests for the detection of HIV exhibit some limitations. HIV-specific antibody typically begins to appear around three weeks post-infection, allowing for detection by most antibody-based assays within 3-6 weeks [3, 5] . The window of time prior to or during early seroconversion may lead to false-negative test results in recently infected individuals. Additionally, accurate diagnosis of infants born to HIV-infected mothers can be challenging if based solely on antibody positivity, since vertically transferred maternal antibodies may persist for 12-18 months after birth [6, 7] . For confirmatory diagnosis of early HIV infection or infant diagnosis, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are preferred, as HIV-1 RNA can be detected as early as 10-12 days post infection and HIV-1 DNA and/or RNA are definitive indicators of active infection [5] . In their current form, however, NAAT's are not feasible for POC testing, because they are timeconsuming, expensive, and technically complicated. To date, the Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., http://www.fda.gov/ BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/ LicensedProductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/InfectiousDisease/ UCM080466) is the only FDA-approved NAAT for the diagnosis or confirmation of HIV-1 infection and it is only suitable for laboratory testing.
To meet the needs of HIV-1 diagnosis at the POC, a rapid NAAT that can be performed with minimal training, limited equipment, and a relatively short turnaround time (,1 hour)is desirable [8] . The development of a rapid NAAT has proven to be especially challenging since the technology involved in simplifying the test procedure often equates to increased equipment and material costs [8] . Additionally, the reduction in technical complexity should not compromise test sensitivity and specificity. For increased applicability at the POC, an increasing number of novel isothermal amplification techniques have been developed [9] . Isothermal amplification is an attractive alternative to traditional PCR or RT-PCR since thermalcycling is not required, allowing for greater versatility in terms of heating or amplification devices. One such amplification method, termed Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) [10] , has been optimized for the detection of DNA and/or RNA (RT-LAMP) from a wide range of bacterial and viral pathogens [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] , including HIV [20, 21] .
LAMP or RT-LAMP exhibits several characteristics that are ideal for integration into a rapid nucleic-acid based diagnostic test. The amplification reaction requires six primers specific for eight separate regions within the target sequence, contributing to the high specificity of the amplification method. Amplified material can typically be detected within 15-60 minutes when incubated at a constant reaction temperature of 60-65uC [22] . LAMP has also proven to be less sensitive to biological inhibitors than PCR [23, 24] , which enables direct amplification from clinical specimens, thereby eliminating the need for an additional nucleic acid extraction step. Direct amplification from plasma, whole blood, and oral fluid has previously been demonstrated for HIV-1 [20, 21, 25] . Lastly, immediate visual detection of amplified products is facilitated by the large amount of DNA that is generated by each reaction. Several groups have incorporated fluorescent detection methods into the LAMP assay for real-time or immediate naked-eye detection [15, 17, 21, 22, 26] .
The simplicity and isothermal nature of the LAMP procedure opens the door for the evaluation of low-tech integrated devices or novel heating elements, which are appropriate for low-resource settings, where costly equipment and electricity cannot be obtained. In this study, the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay was evaluated using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water [27, 28] . We demonstrated the temperature stability of the NINA heating devices and feasibility for POC testing of whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected individuals.
Prototype NINA heaters were designed and provided by Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH, Seattle, WA), as described [27, 28] . Briefly, an amplification temperature of approximately 60uC was provided by the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide (CaO; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and water. The heating devices, containing the chemical reaction, were designed using thermally insulated, stainless-steel canisters with plastic screw-top lids (Fig. 1) . The lids were modified to contain three sample wells that fit standard 200 ml PCR tubes and were filled with a proprietary phase-change material (PCM) that was used to buffer the heat derived from the exothermic reaction, thereby providing a constant temperature. Lastly, plastic caps containing foam insulation were designed to fit on the top of the canister lids. The thermal profiles of the sample wells were measured and recorded using a digital thermometer (DaqPRO 5300 Data recorder; OMEGA Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CT).
DNA and RNA linearity panels were prepared to determine the sensitivity of the HIV-specific RT-LAMP assay. A DNA panel was generated from DNA extracted from the human monocytic cell line OM-10.1 [29] , using a QIAamp DNA blood mini kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA). Cell count was used to quantify the input DNA copy number, as a single integrated provirus is contained in each cell [29] . The extracted DNA was diluted tenfold in RNase-free water to create a linearity panel, ranging from 10 5 copies/ml to 10 3 copies/ml. An RNA linearity panel was obtained commercially (PRD801; SeraCare Life Sciences, Mil- ford, MA) and ranged from 2.9610 6 copies/ml to 8 copies/ml, as determined by Roche AMPLICOR HIV MONITOR TM v 1.5, Bayer VERSANT HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 Assay, bioMerieux NucliSensH HIV-1 QT, and Abbott Real Time HIV-1 m2000 TM . RNA was extracted from the panel members using a Viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN). Negative controls included DNA extracted from PBMC infected with HIV-2 SLRHC [30] and RNA extracted from HIV-2 NIH-Z purified virus (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc., Columbia, MD).
Whole blood from HIV-1 infected individuals was collected as part of a separate, IRB-approved study [31] , or obtained commercially (SeraCare Life Sciences). All HIV-positive samples were confirmed using the following tests: Genetic Systems HIV-1/ HIV-2 plus O EIA (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Redmond, WA), GS HIV-1 Western blot (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., San Diego, CA), and Amplicor HIV-1 DNA assay (Roche Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ ). Viral and proviral loads are unknown, since the samples were tested with qualitative, nucleic acid-based assays. All clinical specimens evaluated in this study were obtained from individuals infected with subtype B HIV-1 virus. As a negative control, HIV-1 seronegative blood samples (SeraCare Life Sciences) were included in every experiment involving whole blood. A positive control included HIV-1 seronegative blood spiked with 5610 6 virus particles/ml of HIV-1 BaL (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc.).
HIV-1-specific RT-LAMP primers were designed to recognize a conserved sequence within the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene. The six primers required for the RT-LAMP reaction, forward outer (F3), backward outer (B3), forward inner (FIP), backward inner (BIP), and the loop primers (LoopF and LoopB), were designed using the PrimerExplorer V4 software (Eiken Chemical Co. Ltd.; http:// primerexplorer.jp/e/). The LAMP primers and amplification cycle have been described in detail by Nagamine et al. [32] . Additional modifications included a linker sequence of four thymidines inserted between the F2 and F1c sequences of the FIP primer, as described [20] , and the addition of the fluorescent molecule HEX to the 59 end of the LoopF primer. The labeled primer, along with a quencher probe, allowed for immediate visual detection of amplified products [21] . The quencher probe consisted of the complementary sequence of the LoopF primer with Black Hole Quencher-1 (BHQ-1) added to the 39 end. The HIV-1 HXB2 sequence (GenBank accession number AF033819) was used as the reference for generating the RT-LAMP primers. The sequences of the HIV-1 RT-specific primers and quencher are listed in Table 1 .
The RT-LAMP reaction was performed using the following reaction mix: 0.2 mM (final concentration) of each F3 and B3 primers, 1.6 mM of each FIP and BIP primers, 0.8 mM of each LoopF and HEX-LoopB primers, 0.8 M betaine (Sigma-Aldrich), 10 mM MgSO 4 , 1.4 mM dNTPs, 16 ThermoPol reaction buffer (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA), 16 U Bst DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) and 2 U AMV reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The reaction was carried out in a total volume of 25 ml for amplification of extracted nucleic acid, 10 ml of which constituted the sample. For amplification of whole blood specimens, a 100 ml reaction volume was used to facilitate visual detection of amplified products. Whole blood was added directly into the reaction at a total volume of 40 ml, following a 1:4 dilution with red blood cell lysis buffer (2.5 mM KHCO 3 , 37.5 mM NH 4 Cl, and 0.025 mM EDTA), as previously described [21] . The reaction mixture was incubated at 60uC for 60 minutes, using a GeneAmpH PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) or the NINA heaters. For reactions amplified in the thermalcylcer, an additional two minute heating step of 80uC was added at the end of the amplification cycle to terminate the reaction.
The reaction tubes were evaluated for the presence of amplification, following addition of the quencher probe at a 2:1 ratio of quencher to labeled-primer, as previously described [21] . Amplification was determined visually by observing fluorescence in the reaction tubes, using the UV lamp from a ChemiDoc XRS system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). Amplification was confirmed by electrophoresis using a 1.2% agarose gel containing SYBRH Safe gel stain (Invitrogen), which was subsequently visualized using the ChemiDoc XRS system.
To compare temperature and amplification consistency, three NINA heaters were tested in parallel. The heating reaction was initiated by adding 18 g of CaO to each NINA canister, followed by 6 ml of water. The lid of each canister was then sealed to contain the exothermic reaction. After adding 200 ml of water to each of the sample wells, temperature recording was initiated. Reaction tubes were added to the sample wells once each reaction chamber reached a temperature of 58.5uC. For all samples incubated in the NINA heater, 15 ml of mineral oil was added to the reaction tube during the reaction mix preparation. The samples were incubated in the heaters for a total of 60 minutes. All reactions were carried out in a temperature-controlled laboratory with an ambient temperature of 28uC, unless otherwise stated. Following the amplification reaction, the samples were incubated for two minutes in a heat block set to 80uC. After each amplification cycle, the temperature profile of each device was analyzed by calculating the temperature mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum from the data provided by the DaqPRO 5300.
The stability of the NINA heaters at extreme low and high temperatures was evaluated by placing the canisters in a refrigerator set to 4uC or a 37uC incubator during the length of the amplification reaction. The temperature profiles were recorded and compared to those of reactions that occurred at the laboratory room temperature of 28uC.
To determine the sensitivity of RT-LAMP reaction using RTspecific primers, DNA and RNA linearity panels were tested in a thermalcycler. The limit of detection for HIV-1 DNA was 10 copies/reaction. For the RNA linearity panel, the sample containing 1700 copies/reaction was detected in all of the three replicates, while the sample containing 140 copies/reaction was detected in three out of five replicates (60%). For both DNA and RNA linearity panels, the two samples nearest the limit of detection were chosen to further evaluate the performance consistency between the thermalcycler and NINA heaters. In terms of positivity, the amplification results were consistent between all three heaters and the thermalcycler ( Table 2) . Since the RT-LAMP assay requires a constant temperature of 60uC for the length of the amplification reaction, the temperature profiles of the sample wells were compared over the course of the incubation and between all three NINA heaters. A representative temperature profile is displayed in Figure 2 , showing a steady reaction temperature at or close to 60uC for length of amplification reaction. During the 60 minute incubation, the average temperature for each device was 60.2, 59.8, and 59.7 (Table 3 ). The minimum temperature achieved during the reaction reflects the fact that the temperature of the sample port dropped temporarily after the sample tubes are added to the device, as shown in Figure 2 . The maximum temperature of the devices deviated from the desired reaction temperature of 60uC by less than one degree.
The ability of the NINA heaters to maintain a steady reaction temperature in a wide range of ambient temperatures is essential for POC testing, whether referring to an air-conditioned laboratory or high-temperature field site. To evaluate the performance of the NINA heaters at extreme low or high temperatures, the canisters were placed in a 4uC refrigerator or a 37uC incubator for the length of the amplification reaction. The limit of detection for the DNA and RNA linearity panels was similar to the results obtained in our temperature-controlled laboratory (28uC; Table 2 ). The greatest degree of temperature variation of the sample wells was observed at the ambient temperature of 4uC ( Table 3 ). The average temperature was approximately two degrees lower than the desired reaction temperature of 60uC. Additionally, the temperature of the devices tended to decline from their steady state during the last 20 minutes of the reaction (data not shown). The temperature profiles at the ambient temperature of 37uC, however, were similar to those at 28uC.
Whole blood samples from HIV-1 infected individuals were added directly into the RT-LAMP reaction and tested in the NINA heaters. Positivity of the clinical specimens was consistent between the thermalcycler and devices (Table 4 ). Amplification consistency was most evident with two of the patient samples (patient #4 and #5) that were only positive in one of the three replicates, regardless of the heating device that was used. All HIVnegative blood samples, included in each reaction, were negative (data not shown). A representative experiment using the NINA heaters is displayed in Figure 3 , showing detection by agarose gel and visual identification of fluorescence in the reaction tubes.
In this study, we demonstrate the performance of portable, inexpensive, non-instrumented nucleic acid (NINA) heaters for amplification of HIV-1 using RT-LAMP. The isothermal amplification reaction coupled with a device that generates heat from an exothermic chemical reaction, as opposed to grid electricity or battery power, comprises a point-of-care NAAT that is practical for use in resource-limited settings. The heating devices require minimal training and technical expertise to operate and take approximately 10-15 minutes to reach a reaction temperature of 60uC once the chemical reaction has been initiated [27, 28] . Furthermore, the temperature of the sample wells remain relatively stable at the desired reaction temperature of 60uC throughout the amplification reaction, as demonstrated by the heating profiles and the consistency in amplification between the devices and thermalcycler.
Since point-of-care testing may refer to an air-conditioned laboratory or a field site with high temperatures and humidity, the stability of the temperature generated by the heating devices must be reliable. Though the temperature profiles at a representative cold temperature of 4uC indicated a loss in reaction temperature towards the end of the 60 minute incubation, the temperature fluctuations were not significant enough to affect the amplification reaction. Regardless, this thermal effect could be mitigated with small modifications to the device to reduce heat loss at lower temperatures. It should be possible to extend the temperature range of the NINA heaters to 4uC and below by either adding a larger quantity of heating mixture, better insulation, or both. Of greater concern is the performance of the NINA heaters in hightemperature field sites, where temperature control is not an option.
We demonstrate no difference in the temperature stability of the NINA heaters and amplification consistency at an ambient temperature of 37uC as compared to our temperature-controlled laboratory.
For increased applicability for use at the POC, several modifications can be made to the NINA heaters. The prototype devices evaluated in this study contained only three sample wells; however, up to 16 sample wells can be added to the lid of the insulated canisters for a larger testing volume. In this study, samples were removed from the NINA heaters after the amplification reaction and heated for an additional two minutes in an 80uC heat block to terminate the reaction. While the additional heating step is not necessary to observe the amplified products from extracted nucleic acid, the short, high-temperature incubation facilitates the visual observation of the fluorescent label in the whole blood samples. Modifications may be made to the whole blood sample preparation method to eliminate the need for the heating step. Alternatively, a second temperature-moderating compartment can be added to the alternate end of the NINA canisters, so the samples can be removed from the amplification compartment and reinserted into the 80uC compartment. Lastly, the DaqPRO data recorder was used in this study for validation purposes only and would not be necessary for the final POC product.
The feasibility of using LAMP as a diagnostic method in resource-limited settings has been demonstrated for tuberculosis [33] . To reduce hands-on time and preparation error, the authors describe the use of reaction tubes pre-prepared with lyophilized reaction mix. For POC use, limited sample manipulation and reagent preparation is desired and, therefore, it is anticipated that the test procedure of the end product will include reconstituting the amplification reagents in water and adding the sample directly into the reaction tube. We demonstrate the use of the NINA heaters for amplification directly from whole blood specimens, eliminating the need for a time-consuming, nucleic acid extraction procedure and reducing the volume of sample needed for the amplification reaction. A total volume of 10 ml of whole blood was added to each reaction tube, which can easily be obtained by finger-stick in settings where venipuncture is not feasible. Additionally, our fluorescent detection method enables immediate visualization of amplified products in the absence of specialized equipment. To avoid cross-contamination of amplified material, it is preferred that the reaction tubes remain closed post-amplification. Future modifications will include optimizing the labeledprimer/quencher sequences so that all components can be added into the reaction mix prior to amplification. Due to availability, the Bio-Rad ChemiDoc system was used as the UV source in this study; however, an inexpensive keychain light would be more suitable for naked-eye detection at the POC. For sensitive and specific detection of diverse HIV-1 isolates, including non-B subtypes, identification of the optimal primer set/sets is a key step in the development of the RT-LAMP assay. Although all experiments performed in this study involved subtype B standards and specimens, ongoing research involves the continued development and optimization of RT-LAMP primers based on regions of the HIV-1 genome that are conserved among diverse subtypes. Future studies will include large-scale evaluation of clinical specimens with the optimized RT-LAMP assay and NINA device. In summary, the RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a simplified, chemical heating device exhibits characteristics that are ideal for a rapid NAAT for POC testing. The simplified, portable assay has the potential to fill an important gap in HIV-1 diagnostics, providing immediate knowledge or confirmation of HIV-1 infection status at the POC. | 1,580 | What screening method was evaluated in this study? | {
"answer_start": [
1334
],
"text": [
"HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay"
]
} | 4,435 |
535 | Isothermal Amplification Using a Chemical Heating Device for Point-of-Care Detection of HIV-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285652/
SHA: ef7110a9022bac2e50c995b0f6b826ff071e48f8
Authors: Curtis, Kelly A.; Rudolph, Donna L.; Nejad, Irene; Singleton, Jered; Beddoe, Andy; Weigl, Bernhard; LaBarre, Paul; Owen, S. Michele
Date: 2012-02-23
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031432
License: cc0
Abstract: BACKGROUND: To date, the use of traditional nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for detection of HIV-1 DNA or RNA has been restricted to laboratory settings due to time, equipment, and technical expertise requirements. The availability of a rapid NAAT with applicability for resource-limited or point-of-care (POC) settings would fill a great need in HIV diagnostics, allowing for timely diagnosis or confirmation of infection status, as well as facilitating the diagnosis of acute infection, screening and evaluation of infants born to HIV-infected mothers. Isothermal amplification methods, such as reverse-transcription, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), exhibit characteristics that are ideal for POC settings, since they are typically quicker, easier to perform, and allow for integration into low-tech, portable heating devices. METHODOLOGY/SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS: In this study, we evaluated the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) heating devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water. The NINA heating devices exhibited stable temperatures throughout the amplification reaction and consistent amplification results between three separate devices and a thermalcycler. The performance of the NINA heaters was validated using whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected patients. CONCLUSION: The RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a chemical heating device provides a portable, rapid and robust NAAT platform that has the potential to facilitate HIV-1 testing in resource-limited settings and POC.
Text: HIV-1 diagnostic tests are held to a high standard of performance, as diagnosis has a direct impact on patient care and reduction of transmission. Despite technological advances in the field of HIV diagnostics and the high sensitivity and specificity associated with most HIV diagnostic tests that are currently available, it is estimated that approximately 20% of HIV-infected individuals living in the United States remain undiagnosed [1] . Furthermore, testing sites have reported as many as 35 to 50% of individuals with an initial positive test result will not return for a confirmatory diagnosis if follow-up laboratory testing is required [2] . Rapid HIV antibodybased tests, which can be performed with minimal training and typically provide results in under 30 minutes [3] , have facilitated HIV testing at the point-of-care and subsequently increased the numbers of individuals aware of their serostatus [4] . Rapid tests are currently a key component of HIV screening at the point-of-care (POC), significantly expanding the diagnostic capabilities of testing sites in developed countries, as well as resource-limited settings.
Despite the advances made by the widespread availability of rapid tests, all antibody-based tests for the detection of HIV exhibit some limitations. HIV-specific antibody typically begins to appear around three weeks post-infection, allowing for detection by most antibody-based assays within 3-6 weeks [3, 5] . The window of time prior to or during early seroconversion may lead to false-negative test results in recently infected individuals. Additionally, accurate diagnosis of infants born to HIV-infected mothers can be challenging if based solely on antibody positivity, since vertically transferred maternal antibodies may persist for 12-18 months after birth [6, 7] . For confirmatory diagnosis of early HIV infection or infant diagnosis, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are preferred, as HIV-1 RNA can be detected as early as 10-12 days post infection and HIV-1 DNA and/or RNA are definitive indicators of active infection [5] . In their current form, however, NAAT's are not feasible for POC testing, because they are timeconsuming, expensive, and technically complicated. To date, the Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., http://www.fda.gov/ BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/ LicensedProductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/InfectiousDisease/ UCM080466) is the only FDA-approved NAAT for the diagnosis or confirmation of HIV-1 infection and it is only suitable for laboratory testing.
To meet the needs of HIV-1 diagnosis at the POC, a rapid NAAT that can be performed with minimal training, limited equipment, and a relatively short turnaround time (,1 hour)is desirable [8] . The development of a rapid NAAT has proven to be especially challenging since the technology involved in simplifying the test procedure often equates to increased equipment and material costs [8] . Additionally, the reduction in technical complexity should not compromise test sensitivity and specificity. For increased applicability at the POC, an increasing number of novel isothermal amplification techniques have been developed [9] . Isothermal amplification is an attractive alternative to traditional PCR or RT-PCR since thermalcycling is not required, allowing for greater versatility in terms of heating or amplification devices. One such amplification method, termed Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) [10] , has been optimized for the detection of DNA and/or RNA (RT-LAMP) from a wide range of bacterial and viral pathogens [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] , including HIV [20, 21] .
LAMP or RT-LAMP exhibits several characteristics that are ideal for integration into a rapid nucleic-acid based diagnostic test. The amplification reaction requires six primers specific for eight separate regions within the target sequence, contributing to the high specificity of the amplification method. Amplified material can typically be detected within 15-60 minutes when incubated at a constant reaction temperature of 60-65uC [22] . LAMP has also proven to be less sensitive to biological inhibitors than PCR [23, 24] , which enables direct amplification from clinical specimens, thereby eliminating the need for an additional nucleic acid extraction step. Direct amplification from plasma, whole blood, and oral fluid has previously been demonstrated for HIV-1 [20, 21, 25] . Lastly, immediate visual detection of amplified products is facilitated by the large amount of DNA that is generated by each reaction. Several groups have incorporated fluorescent detection methods into the LAMP assay for real-time or immediate naked-eye detection [15, 17, 21, 22, 26] .
The simplicity and isothermal nature of the LAMP procedure opens the door for the evaluation of low-tech integrated devices or novel heating elements, which are appropriate for low-resource settings, where costly equipment and electricity cannot be obtained. In this study, the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay was evaluated using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water [27, 28] . We demonstrated the temperature stability of the NINA heating devices and feasibility for POC testing of whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected individuals.
Prototype NINA heaters were designed and provided by Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH, Seattle, WA), as described [27, 28] . Briefly, an amplification temperature of approximately 60uC was provided by the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide (CaO; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and water. The heating devices, containing the chemical reaction, were designed using thermally insulated, stainless-steel canisters with plastic screw-top lids (Fig. 1) . The lids were modified to contain three sample wells that fit standard 200 ml PCR tubes and were filled with a proprietary phase-change material (PCM) that was used to buffer the heat derived from the exothermic reaction, thereby providing a constant temperature. Lastly, plastic caps containing foam insulation were designed to fit on the top of the canister lids. The thermal profiles of the sample wells were measured and recorded using a digital thermometer (DaqPRO 5300 Data recorder; OMEGA Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CT).
DNA and RNA linearity panels were prepared to determine the sensitivity of the HIV-specific RT-LAMP assay. A DNA panel was generated from DNA extracted from the human monocytic cell line OM-10.1 [29] , using a QIAamp DNA blood mini kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA). Cell count was used to quantify the input DNA copy number, as a single integrated provirus is contained in each cell [29] . The extracted DNA was diluted tenfold in RNase-free water to create a linearity panel, ranging from 10 5 copies/ml to 10 3 copies/ml. An RNA linearity panel was obtained commercially (PRD801; SeraCare Life Sciences, Mil- ford, MA) and ranged from 2.9610 6 copies/ml to 8 copies/ml, as determined by Roche AMPLICOR HIV MONITOR TM v 1.5, Bayer VERSANT HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 Assay, bioMerieux NucliSensH HIV-1 QT, and Abbott Real Time HIV-1 m2000 TM . RNA was extracted from the panel members using a Viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN). Negative controls included DNA extracted from PBMC infected with HIV-2 SLRHC [30] and RNA extracted from HIV-2 NIH-Z purified virus (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc., Columbia, MD).
Whole blood from HIV-1 infected individuals was collected as part of a separate, IRB-approved study [31] , or obtained commercially (SeraCare Life Sciences). All HIV-positive samples were confirmed using the following tests: Genetic Systems HIV-1/ HIV-2 plus O EIA (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Redmond, WA), GS HIV-1 Western blot (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., San Diego, CA), and Amplicor HIV-1 DNA assay (Roche Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ ). Viral and proviral loads are unknown, since the samples were tested with qualitative, nucleic acid-based assays. All clinical specimens evaluated in this study were obtained from individuals infected with subtype B HIV-1 virus. As a negative control, HIV-1 seronegative blood samples (SeraCare Life Sciences) were included in every experiment involving whole blood. A positive control included HIV-1 seronegative blood spiked with 5610 6 virus particles/ml of HIV-1 BaL (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc.).
HIV-1-specific RT-LAMP primers were designed to recognize a conserved sequence within the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene. The six primers required for the RT-LAMP reaction, forward outer (F3), backward outer (B3), forward inner (FIP), backward inner (BIP), and the loop primers (LoopF and LoopB), were designed using the PrimerExplorer V4 software (Eiken Chemical Co. Ltd.; http:// primerexplorer.jp/e/). The LAMP primers and amplification cycle have been described in detail by Nagamine et al. [32] . Additional modifications included a linker sequence of four thymidines inserted between the F2 and F1c sequences of the FIP primer, as described [20] , and the addition of the fluorescent molecule HEX to the 59 end of the LoopF primer. The labeled primer, along with a quencher probe, allowed for immediate visual detection of amplified products [21] . The quencher probe consisted of the complementary sequence of the LoopF primer with Black Hole Quencher-1 (BHQ-1) added to the 39 end. The HIV-1 HXB2 sequence (GenBank accession number AF033819) was used as the reference for generating the RT-LAMP primers. The sequences of the HIV-1 RT-specific primers and quencher are listed in Table 1 .
The RT-LAMP reaction was performed using the following reaction mix: 0.2 mM (final concentration) of each F3 and B3 primers, 1.6 mM of each FIP and BIP primers, 0.8 mM of each LoopF and HEX-LoopB primers, 0.8 M betaine (Sigma-Aldrich), 10 mM MgSO 4 , 1.4 mM dNTPs, 16 ThermoPol reaction buffer (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA), 16 U Bst DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) and 2 U AMV reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The reaction was carried out in a total volume of 25 ml for amplification of extracted nucleic acid, 10 ml of which constituted the sample. For amplification of whole blood specimens, a 100 ml reaction volume was used to facilitate visual detection of amplified products. Whole blood was added directly into the reaction at a total volume of 40 ml, following a 1:4 dilution with red blood cell lysis buffer (2.5 mM KHCO 3 , 37.5 mM NH 4 Cl, and 0.025 mM EDTA), as previously described [21] . The reaction mixture was incubated at 60uC for 60 minutes, using a GeneAmpH PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) or the NINA heaters. For reactions amplified in the thermalcylcer, an additional two minute heating step of 80uC was added at the end of the amplification cycle to terminate the reaction.
The reaction tubes were evaluated for the presence of amplification, following addition of the quencher probe at a 2:1 ratio of quencher to labeled-primer, as previously described [21] . Amplification was determined visually by observing fluorescence in the reaction tubes, using the UV lamp from a ChemiDoc XRS system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). Amplification was confirmed by electrophoresis using a 1.2% agarose gel containing SYBRH Safe gel stain (Invitrogen), which was subsequently visualized using the ChemiDoc XRS system.
To compare temperature and amplification consistency, three NINA heaters were tested in parallel. The heating reaction was initiated by adding 18 g of CaO to each NINA canister, followed by 6 ml of water. The lid of each canister was then sealed to contain the exothermic reaction. After adding 200 ml of water to each of the sample wells, temperature recording was initiated. Reaction tubes were added to the sample wells once each reaction chamber reached a temperature of 58.5uC. For all samples incubated in the NINA heater, 15 ml of mineral oil was added to the reaction tube during the reaction mix preparation. The samples were incubated in the heaters for a total of 60 minutes. All reactions were carried out in a temperature-controlled laboratory with an ambient temperature of 28uC, unless otherwise stated. Following the amplification reaction, the samples were incubated for two minutes in a heat block set to 80uC. After each amplification cycle, the temperature profile of each device was analyzed by calculating the temperature mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum from the data provided by the DaqPRO 5300.
The stability of the NINA heaters at extreme low and high temperatures was evaluated by placing the canisters in a refrigerator set to 4uC or a 37uC incubator during the length of the amplification reaction. The temperature profiles were recorded and compared to those of reactions that occurred at the laboratory room temperature of 28uC.
To determine the sensitivity of RT-LAMP reaction using RTspecific primers, DNA and RNA linearity panels were tested in a thermalcycler. The limit of detection for HIV-1 DNA was 10 copies/reaction. For the RNA linearity panel, the sample containing 1700 copies/reaction was detected in all of the three replicates, while the sample containing 140 copies/reaction was detected in three out of five replicates (60%). For both DNA and RNA linearity panels, the two samples nearest the limit of detection were chosen to further evaluate the performance consistency between the thermalcycler and NINA heaters. In terms of positivity, the amplification results were consistent between all three heaters and the thermalcycler ( Table 2) . Since the RT-LAMP assay requires a constant temperature of 60uC for the length of the amplification reaction, the temperature profiles of the sample wells were compared over the course of the incubation and between all three NINA heaters. A representative temperature profile is displayed in Figure 2 , showing a steady reaction temperature at or close to 60uC for length of amplification reaction. During the 60 minute incubation, the average temperature for each device was 60.2, 59.8, and 59.7 (Table 3 ). The minimum temperature achieved during the reaction reflects the fact that the temperature of the sample port dropped temporarily after the sample tubes are added to the device, as shown in Figure 2 . The maximum temperature of the devices deviated from the desired reaction temperature of 60uC by less than one degree.
The ability of the NINA heaters to maintain a steady reaction temperature in a wide range of ambient temperatures is essential for POC testing, whether referring to an air-conditioned laboratory or high-temperature field site. To evaluate the performance of the NINA heaters at extreme low or high temperatures, the canisters were placed in a 4uC refrigerator or a 37uC incubator for the length of the amplification reaction. The limit of detection for the DNA and RNA linearity panels was similar to the results obtained in our temperature-controlled laboratory (28uC; Table 2 ). The greatest degree of temperature variation of the sample wells was observed at the ambient temperature of 4uC ( Table 3 ). The average temperature was approximately two degrees lower than the desired reaction temperature of 60uC. Additionally, the temperature of the devices tended to decline from their steady state during the last 20 minutes of the reaction (data not shown). The temperature profiles at the ambient temperature of 37uC, however, were similar to those at 28uC.
Whole blood samples from HIV-1 infected individuals were added directly into the RT-LAMP reaction and tested in the NINA heaters. Positivity of the clinical specimens was consistent between the thermalcycler and devices (Table 4 ). Amplification consistency was most evident with two of the patient samples (patient #4 and #5) that were only positive in one of the three replicates, regardless of the heating device that was used. All HIVnegative blood samples, included in each reaction, were negative (data not shown). A representative experiment using the NINA heaters is displayed in Figure 3 , showing detection by agarose gel and visual identification of fluorescence in the reaction tubes.
In this study, we demonstrate the performance of portable, inexpensive, non-instrumented nucleic acid (NINA) heaters for amplification of HIV-1 using RT-LAMP. The isothermal amplification reaction coupled with a device that generates heat from an exothermic chemical reaction, as opposed to grid electricity or battery power, comprises a point-of-care NAAT that is practical for use in resource-limited settings. The heating devices require minimal training and technical expertise to operate and take approximately 10-15 minutes to reach a reaction temperature of 60uC once the chemical reaction has been initiated [27, 28] . Furthermore, the temperature of the sample wells remain relatively stable at the desired reaction temperature of 60uC throughout the amplification reaction, as demonstrated by the heating profiles and the consistency in amplification between the devices and thermalcycler.
Since point-of-care testing may refer to an air-conditioned laboratory or a field site with high temperatures and humidity, the stability of the temperature generated by the heating devices must be reliable. Though the temperature profiles at a representative cold temperature of 4uC indicated a loss in reaction temperature towards the end of the 60 minute incubation, the temperature fluctuations were not significant enough to affect the amplification reaction. Regardless, this thermal effect could be mitigated with small modifications to the device to reduce heat loss at lower temperatures. It should be possible to extend the temperature range of the NINA heaters to 4uC and below by either adding a larger quantity of heating mixture, better insulation, or both. Of greater concern is the performance of the NINA heaters in hightemperature field sites, where temperature control is not an option.
We demonstrate no difference in the temperature stability of the NINA heaters and amplification consistency at an ambient temperature of 37uC as compared to our temperature-controlled laboratory.
For increased applicability for use at the POC, several modifications can be made to the NINA heaters. The prototype devices evaluated in this study contained only three sample wells; however, up to 16 sample wells can be added to the lid of the insulated canisters for a larger testing volume. In this study, samples were removed from the NINA heaters after the amplification reaction and heated for an additional two minutes in an 80uC heat block to terminate the reaction. While the additional heating step is not necessary to observe the amplified products from extracted nucleic acid, the short, high-temperature incubation facilitates the visual observation of the fluorescent label in the whole blood samples. Modifications may be made to the whole blood sample preparation method to eliminate the need for the heating step. Alternatively, a second temperature-moderating compartment can be added to the alternate end of the NINA canisters, so the samples can be removed from the amplification compartment and reinserted into the 80uC compartment. Lastly, the DaqPRO data recorder was used in this study for validation purposes only and would not be necessary for the final POC product.
The feasibility of using LAMP as a diagnostic method in resource-limited settings has been demonstrated for tuberculosis [33] . To reduce hands-on time and preparation error, the authors describe the use of reaction tubes pre-prepared with lyophilized reaction mix. For POC use, limited sample manipulation and reagent preparation is desired and, therefore, it is anticipated that the test procedure of the end product will include reconstituting the amplification reagents in water and adding the sample directly into the reaction tube. We demonstrate the use of the NINA heaters for amplification directly from whole blood specimens, eliminating the need for a time-consuming, nucleic acid extraction procedure and reducing the volume of sample needed for the amplification reaction. A total volume of 10 ml of whole blood was added to each reaction tube, which can easily be obtained by finger-stick in settings where venipuncture is not feasible. Additionally, our fluorescent detection method enables immediate visualization of amplified products in the absence of specialized equipment. To avoid cross-contamination of amplified material, it is preferred that the reaction tubes remain closed post-amplification. Future modifications will include optimizing the labeledprimer/quencher sequences so that all components can be added into the reaction mix prior to amplification. Due to availability, the Bio-Rad ChemiDoc system was used as the UV source in this study; however, an inexpensive keychain light would be more suitable for naked-eye detection at the POC. For sensitive and specific detection of diverse HIV-1 isolates, including non-B subtypes, identification of the optimal primer set/sets is a key step in the development of the RT-LAMP assay. Although all experiments performed in this study involved subtype B standards and specimens, ongoing research involves the continued development and optimization of RT-LAMP primers based on regions of the HIV-1 genome that are conserved among diverse subtypes. Future studies will include large-scale evaluation of clinical specimens with the optimized RT-LAMP assay and NINA device. In summary, the RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a simplified, chemical heating device exhibits characteristics that are ideal for a rapid NAAT for POC testing. The simplified, portable assay has the potential to fill an important gap in HIV-1 diagnostics, providing immediate knowledge or confirmation of HIV-1 infection status at the POC. | 1,580 | What was used to measure the performance of the NINA heaters? | {
"answer_start": [
1751
],
"text": [
"whole blood specimens"
]
} | 4,436 |
536 | Isothermal Amplification Using a Chemical Heating Device for Point-of-Care Detection of HIV-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285652/
SHA: ef7110a9022bac2e50c995b0f6b826ff071e48f8
Authors: Curtis, Kelly A.; Rudolph, Donna L.; Nejad, Irene; Singleton, Jered; Beddoe, Andy; Weigl, Bernhard; LaBarre, Paul; Owen, S. Michele
Date: 2012-02-23
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031432
License: cc0
Abstract: BACKGROUND: To date, the use of traditional nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for detection of HIV-1 DNA or RNA has been restricted to laboratory settings due to time, equipment, and technical expertise requirements. The availability of a rapid NAAT with applicability for resource-limited or point-of-care (POC) settings would fill a great need in HIV diagnostics, allowing for timely diagnosis or confirmation of infection status, as well as facilitating the diagnosis of acute infection, screening and evaluation of infants born to HIV-infected mothers. Isothermal amplification methods, such as reverse-transcription, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), exhibit characteristics that are ideal for POC settings, since they are typically quicker, easier to perform, and allow for integration into low-tech, portable heating devices. METHODOLOGY/SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS: In this study, we evaluated the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) heating devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water. The NINA heating devices exhibited stable temperatures throughout the amplification reaction and consistent amplification results between three separate devices and a thermalcycler. The performance of the NINA heaters was validated using whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected patients. CONCLUSION: The RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a chemical heating device provides a portable, rapid and robust NAAT platform that has the potential to facilitate HIV-1 testing in resource-limited settings and POC.
Text: HIV-1 diagnostic tests are held to a high standard of performance, as diagnosis has a direct impact on patient care and reduction of transmission. Despite technological advances in the field of HIV diagnostics and the high sensitivity and specificity associated with most HIV diagnostic tests that are currently available, it is estimated that approximately 20% of HIV-infected individuals living in the United States remain undiagnosed [1] . Furthermore, testing sites have reported as many as 35 to 50% of individuals with an initial positive test result will not return for a confirmatory diagnosis if follow-up laboratory testing is required [2] . Rapid HIV antibodybased tests, which can be performed with minimal training and typically provide results in under 30 minutes [3] , have facilitated HIV testing at the point-of-care and subsequently increased the numbers of individuals aware of their serostatus [4] . Rapid tests are currently a key component of HIV screening at the point-of-care (POC), significantly expanding the diagnostic capabilities of testing sites in developed countries, as well as resource-limited settings.
Despite the advances made by the widespread availability of rapid tests, all antibody-based tests for the detection of HIV exhibit some limitations. HIV-specific antibody typically begins to appear around three weeks post-infection, allowing for detection by most antibody-based assays within 3-6 weeks [3, 5] . The window of time prior to or during early seroconversion may lead to false-negative test results in recently infected individuals. Additionally, accurate diagnosis of infants born to HIV-infected mothers can be challenging if based solely on antibody positivity, since vertically transferred maternal antibodies may persist for 12-18 months after birth [6, 7] . For confirmatory diagnosis of early HIV infection or infant diagnosis, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are preferred, as HIV-1 RNA can be detected as early as 10-12 days post infection and HIV-1 DNA and/or RNA are definitive indicators of active infection [5] . In their current form, however, NAAT's are not feasible for POC testing, because they are timeconsuming, expensive, and technically complicated. To date, the Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., http://www.fda.gov/ BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/ LicensedProductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/InfectiousDisease/ UCM080466) is the only FDA-approved NAAT for the diagnosis or confirmation of HIV-1 infection and it is only suitable for laboratory testing.
To meet the needs of HIV-1 diagnosis at the POC, a rapid NAAT that can be performed with minimal training, limited equipment, and a relatively short turnaround time (,1 hour)is desirable [8] . The development of a rapid NAAT has proven to be especially challenging since the technology involved in simplifying the test procedure often equates to increased equipment and material costs [8] . Additionally, the reduction in technical complexity should not compromise test sensitivity and specificity. For increased applicability at the POC, an increasing number of novel isothermal amplification techniques have been developed [9] . Isothermal amplification is an attractive alternative to traditional PCR or RT-PCR since thermalcycling is not required, allowing for greater versatility in terms of heating or amplification devices. One such amplification method, termed Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) [10] , has been optimized for the detection of DNA and/or RNA (RT-LAMP) from a wide range of bacterial and viral pathogens [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] , including HIV [20, 21] .
LAMP or RT-LAMP exhibits several characteristics that are ideal for integration into a rapid nucleic-acid based diagnostic test. The amplification reaction requires six primers specific for eight separate regions within the target sequence, contributing to the high specificity of the amplification method. Amplified material can typically be detected within 15-60 minutes when incubated at a constant reaction temperature of 60-65uC [22] . LAMP has also proven to be less sensitive to biological inhibitors than PCR [23, 24] , which enables direct amplification from clinical specimens, thereby eliminating the need for an additional nucleic acid extraction step. Direct amplification from plasma, whole blood, and oral fluid has previously been demonstrated for HIV-1 [20, 21, 25] . Lastly, immediate visual detection of amplified products is facilitated by the large amount of DNA that is generated by each reaction. Several groups have incorporated fluorescent detection methods into the LAMP assay for real-time or immediate naked-eye detection [15, 17, 21, 22, 26] .
The simplicity and isothermal nature of the LAMP procedure opens the door for the evaluation of low-tech integrated devices or novel heating elements, which are appropriate for low-resource settings, where costly equipment and electricity cannot be obtained. In this study, the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay was evaluated using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water [27, 28] . We demonstrated the temperature stability of the NINA heating devices and feasibility for POC testing of whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected individuals.
Prototype NINA heaters were designed and provided by Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH, Seattle, WA), as described [27, 28] . Briefly, an amplification temperature of approximately 60uC was provided by the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide (CaO; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and water. The heating devices, containing the chemical reaction, were designed using thermally insulated, stainless-steel canisters with plastic screw-top lids (Fig. 1) . The lids were modified to contain three sample wells that fit standard 200 ml PCR tubes and were filled with a proprietary phase-change material (PCM) that was used to buffer the heat derived from the exothermic reaction, thereby providing a constant temperature. Lastly, plastic caps containing foam insulation were designed to fit on the top of the canister lids. The thermal profiles of the sample wells were measured and recorded using a digital thermometer (DaqPRO 5300 Data recorder; OMEGA Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CT).
DNA and RNA linearity panels were prepared to determine the sensitivity of the HIV-specific RT-LAMP assay. A DNA panel was generated from DNA extracted from the human monocytic cell line OM-10.1 [29] , using a QIAamp DNA blood mini kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA). Cell count was used to quantify the input DNA copy number, as a single integrated provirus is contained in each cell [29] . The extracted DNA was diluted tenfold in RNase-free water to create a linearity panel, ranging from 10 5 copies/ml to 10 3 copies/ml. An RNA linearity panel was obtained commercially (PRD801; SeraCare Life Sciences, Mil- ford, MA) and ranged from 2.9610 6 copies/ml to 8 copies/ml, as determined by Roche AMPLICOR HIV MONITOR TM v 1.5, Bayer VERSANT HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 Assay, bioMerieux NucliSensH HIV-1 QT, and Abbott Real Time HIV-1 m2000 TM . RNA was extracted from the panel members using a Viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN). Negative controls included DNA extracted from PBMC infected with HIV-2 SLRHC [30] and RNA extracted from HIV-2 NIH-Z purified virus (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc., Columbia, MD).
Whole blood from HIV-1 infected individuals was collected as part of a separate, IRB-approved study [31] , or obtained commercially (SeraCare Life Sciences). All HIV-positive samples were confirmed using the following tests: Genetic Systems HIV-1/ HIV-2 plus O EIA (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Redmond, WA), GS HIV-1 Western blot (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., San Diego, CA), and Amplicor HIV-1 DNA assay (Roche Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ ). Viral and proviral loads are unknown, since the samples were tested with qualitative, nucleic acid-based assays. All clinical specimens evaluated in this study were obtained from individuals infected with subtype B HIV-1 virus. As a negative control, HIV-1 seronegative blood samples (SeraCare Life Sciences) were included in every experiment involving whole blood. A positive control included HIV-1 seronegative blood spiked with 5610 6 virus particles/ml of HIV-1 BaL (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc.).
HIV-1-specific RT-LAMP primers were designed to recognize a conserved sequence within the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene. The six primers required for the RT-LAMP reaction, forward outer (F3), backward outer (B3), forward inner (FIP), backward inner (BIP), and the loop primers (LoopF and LoopB), were designed using the PrimerExplorer V4 software (Eiken Chemical Co. Ltd.; http:// primerexplorer.jp/e/). The LAMP primers and amplification cycle have been described in detail by Nagamine et al. [32] . Additional modifications included a linker sequence of four thymidines inserted between the F2 and F1c sequences of the FIP primer, as described [20] , and the addition of the fluorescent molecule HEX to the 59 end of the LoopF primer. The labeled primer, along with a quencher probe, allowed for immediate visual detection of amplified products [21] . The quencher probe consisted of the complementary sequence of the LoopF primer with Black Hole Quencher-1 (BHQ-1) added to the 39 end. The HIV-1 HXB2 sequence (GenBank accession number AF033819) was used as the reference for generating the RT-LAMP primers. The sequences of the HIV-1 RT-specific primers and quencher are listed in Table 1 .
The RT-LAMP reaction was performed using the following reaction mix: 0.2 mM (final concentration) of each F3 and B3 primers, 1.6 mM of each FIP and BIP primers, 0.8 mM of each LoopF and HEX-LoopB primers, 0.8 M betaine (Sigma-Aldrich), 10 mM MgSO 4 , 1.4 mM dNTPs, 16 ThermoPol reaction buffer (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA), 16 U Bst DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) and 2 U AMV reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The reaction was carried out in a total volume of 25 ml for amplification of extracted nucleic acid, 10 ml of which constituted the sample. For amplification of whole blood specimens, a 100 ml reaction volume was used to facilitate visual detection of amplified products. Whole blood was added directly into the reaction at a total volume of 40 ml, following a 1:4 dilution with red blood cell lysis buffer (2.5 mM KHCO 3 , 37.5 mM NH 4 Cl, and 0.025 mM EDTA), as previously described [21] . The reaction mixture was incubated at 60uC for 60 minutes, using a GeneAmpH PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) or the NINA heaters. For reactions amplified in the thermalcylcer, an additional two minute heating step of 80uC was added at the end of the amplification cycle to terminate the reaction.
The reaction tubes were evaluated for the presence of amplification, following addition of the quencher probe at a 2:1 ratio of quencher to labeled-primer, as previously described [21] . Amplification was determined visually by observing fluorescence in the reaction tubes, using the UV lamp from a ChemiDoc XRS system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). Amplification was confirmed by electrophoresis using a 1.2% agarose gel containing SYBRH Safe gel stain (Invitrogen), which was subsequently visualized using the ChemiDoc XRS system.
To compare temperature and amplification consistency, three NINA heaters were tested in parallel. The heating reaction was initiated by adding 18 g of CaO to each NINA canister, followed by 6 ml of water. The lid of each canister was then sealed to contain the exothermic reaction. After adding 200 ml of water to each of the sample wells, temperature recording was initiated. Reaction tubes were added to the sample wells once each reaction chamber reached a temperature of 58.5uC. For all samples incubated in the NINA heater, 15 ml of mineral oil was added to the reaction tube during the reaction mix preparation. The samples were incubated in the heaters for a total of 60 minutes. All reactions were carried out in a temperature-controlled laboratory with an ambient temperature of 28uC, unless otherwise stated. Following the amplification reaction, the samples were incubated for two minutes in a heat block set to 80uC. After each amplification cycle, the temperature profile of each device was analyzed by calculating the temperature mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum from the data provided by the DaqPRO 5300.
The stability of the NINA heaters at extreme low and high temperatures was evaluated by placing the canisters in a refrigerator set to 4uC or a 37uC incubator during the length of the amplification reaction. The temperature profiles were recorded and compared to those of reactions that occurred at the laboratory room temperature of 28uC.
To determine the sensitivity of RT-LAMP reaction using RTspecific primers, DNA and RNA linearity panels were tested in a thermalcycler. The limit of detection for HIV-1 DNA was 10 copies/reaction. For the RNA linearity panel, the sample containing 1700 copies/reaction was detected in all of the three replicates, while the sample containing 140 copies/reaction was detected in three out of five replicates (60%). For both DNA and RNA linearity panels, the two samples nearest the limit of detection were chosen to further evaluate the performance consistency between the thermalcycler and NINA heaters. In terms of positivity, the amplification results were consistent between all three heaters and the thermalcycler ( Table 2) . Since the RT-LAMP assay requires a constant temperature of 60uC for the length of the amplification reaction, the temperature profiles of the sample wells were compared over the course of the incubation and between all three NINA heaters. A representative temperature profile is displayed in Figure 2 , showing a steady reaction temperature at or close to 60uC for length of amplification reaction. During the 60 minute incubation, the average temperature for each device was 60.2, 59.8, and 59.7 (Table 3 ). The minimum temperature achieved during the reaction reflects the fact that the temperature of the sample port dropped temporarily after the sample tubes are added to the device, as shown in Figure 2 . The maximum temperature of the devices deviated from the desired reaction temperature of 60uC by less than one degree.
The ability of the NINA heaters to maintain a steady reaction temperature in a wide range of ambient temperatures is essential for POC testing, whether referring to an air-conditioned laboratory or high-temperature field site. To evaluate the performance of the NINA heaters at extreme low or high temperatures, the canisters were placed in a 4uC refrigerator or a 37uC incubator for the length of the amplification reaction. The limit of detection for the DNA and RNA linearity panels was similar to the results obtained in our temperature-controlled laboratory (28uC; Table 2 ). The greatest degree of temperature variation of the sample wells was observed at the ambient temperature of 4uC ( Table 3 ). The average temperature was approximately two degrees lower than the desired reaction temperature of 60uC. Additionally, the temperature of the devices tended to decline from their steady state during the last 20 minutes of the reaction (data not shown). The temperature profiles at the ambient temperature of 37uC, however, were similar to those at 28uC.
Whole blood samples from HIV-1 infected individuals were added directly into the RT-LAMP reaction and tested in the NINA heaters. Positivity of the clinical specimens was consistent between the thermalcycler and devices (Table 4 ). Amplification consistency was most evident with two of the patient samples (patient #4 and #5) that were only positive in one of the three replicates, regardless of the heating device that was used. All HIVnegative blood samples, included in each reaction, were negative (data not shown). A representative experiment using the NINA heaters is displayed in Figure 3 , showing detection by agarose gel and visual identification of fluorescence in the reaction tubes.
In this study, we demonstrate the performance of portable, inexpensive, non-instrumented nucleic acid (NINA) heaters for amplification of HIV-1 using RT-LAMP. The isothermal amplification reaction coupled with a device that generates heat from an exothermic chemical reaction, as opposed to grid electricity or battery power, comprises a point-of-care NAAT that is practical for use in resource-limited settings. The heating devices require minimal training and technical expertise to operate and take approximately 10-15 minutes to reach a reaction temperature of 60uC once the chemical reaction has been initiated [27, 28] . Furthermore, the temperature of the sample wells remain relatively stable at the desired reaction temperature of 60uC throughout the amplification reaction, as demonstrated by the heating profiles and the consistency in amplification between the devices and thermalcycler.
Since point-of-care testing may refer to an air-conditioned laboratory or a field site with high temperatures and humidity, the stability of the temperature generated by the heating devices must be reliable. Though the temperature profiles at a representative cold temperature of 4uC indicated a loss in reaction temperature towards the end of the 60 minute incubation, the temperature fluctuations were not significant enough to affect the amplification reaction. Regardless, this thermal effect could be mitigated with small modifications to the device to reduce heat loss at lower temperatures. It should be possible to extend the temperature range of the NINA heaters to 4uC and below by either adding a larger quantity of heating mixture, better insulation, or both. Of greater concern is the performance of the NINA heaters in hightemperature field sites, where temperature control is not an option.
We demonstrate no difference in the temperature stability of the NINA heaters and amplification consistency at an ambient temperature of 37uC as compared to our temperature-controlled laboratory.
For increased applicability for use at the POC, several modifications can be made to the NINA heaters. The prototype devices evaluated in this study contained only three sample wells; however, up to 16 sample wells can be added to the lid of the insulated canisters for a larger testing volume. In this study, samples were removed from the NINA heaters after the amplification reaction and heated for an additional two minutes in an 80uC heat block to terminate the reaction. While the additional heating step is not necessary to observe the amplified products from extracted nucleic acid, the short, high-temperature incubation facilitates the visual observation of the fluorescent label in the whole blood samples. Modifications may be made to the whole blood sample preparation method to eliminate the need for the heating step. Alternatively, a second temperature-moderating compartment can be added to the alternate end of the NINA canisters, so the samples can be removed from the amplification compartment and reinserted into the 80uC compartment. Lastly, the DaqPRO data recorder was used in this study for validation purposes only and would not be necessary for the final POC product.
The feasibility of using LAMP as a diagnostic method in resource-limited settings has been demonstrated for tuberculosis [33] . To reduce hands-on time and preparation error, the authors describe the use of reaction tubes pre-prepared with lyophilized reaction mix. For POC use, limited sample manipulation and reagent preparation is desired and, therefore, it is anticipated that the test procedure of the end product will include reconstituting the amplification reagents in water and adding the sample directly into the reaction tube. We demonstrate the use of the NINA heaters for amplification directly from whole blood specimens, eliminating the need for a time-consuming, nucleic acid extraction procedure and reducing the volume of sample needed for the amplification reaction. A total volume of 10 ml of whole blood was added to each reaction tube, which can easily be obtained by finger-stick in settings where venipuncture is not feasible. Additionally, our fluorescent detection method enables immediate visualization of amplified products in the absence of specialized equipment. To avoid cross-contamination of amplified material, it is preferred that the reaction tubes remain closed post-amplification. Future modifications will include optimizing the labeledprimer/quencher sequences so that all components can be added into the reaction mix prior to amplification. Due to availability, the Bio-Rad ChemiDoc system was used as the UV source in this study; however, an inexpensive keychain light would be more suitable for naked-eye detection at the POC. For sensitive and specific detection of diverse HIV-1 isolates, including non-B subtypes, identification of the optimal primer set/sets is a key step in the development of the RT-LAMP assay. Although all experiments performed in this study involved subtype B standards and specimens, ongoing research involves the continued development and optimization of RT-LAMP primers based on regions of the HIV-1 genome that are conserved among diverse subtypes. Future studies will include large-scale evaluation of clinical specimens with the optimized RT-LAMP assay and NINA device. In summary, the RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a simplified, chemical heating device exhibits characteristics that are ideal for a rapid NAAT for POC testing. The simplified, portable assay has the potential to fill an important gap in HIV-1 diagnostics, providing immediate knowledge or confirmation of HIV-1 infection status at the POC. | 1,580 | What percentage of HIV-infected people go undetected in the United States? | {
"answer_start": [
2416
],
"text": [
"20%"
]
} | 4,437 |
537 | Isothermal Amplification Using a Chemical Heating Device for Point-of-Care Detection of HIV-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285652/
SHA: ef7110a9022bac2e50c995b0f6b826ff071e48f8
Authors: Curtis, Kelly A.; Rudolph, Donna L.; Nejad, Irene; Singleton, Jered; Beddoe, Andy; Weigl, Bernhard; LaBarre, Paul; Owen, S. Michele
Date: 2012-02-23
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031432
License: cc0
Abstract: BACKGROUND: To date, the use of traditional nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for detection of HIV-1 DNA or RNA has been restricted to laboratory settings due to time, equipment, and technical expertise requirements. The availability of a rapid NAAT with applicability for resource-limited or point-of-care (POC) settings would fill a great need in HIV diagnostics, allowing for timely diagnosis or confirmation of infection status, as well as facilitating the diagnosis of acute infection, screening and evaluation of infants born to HIV-infected mothers. Isothermal amplification methods, such as reverse-transcription, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), exhibit characteristics that are ideal for POC settings, since they are typically quicker, easier to perform, and allow for integration into low-tech, portable heating devices. METHODOLOGY/SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS: In this study, we evaluated the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) heating devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water. The NINA heating devices exhibited stable temperatures throughout the amplification reaction and consistent amplification results between three separate devices and a thermalcycler. The performance of the NINA heaters was validated using whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected patients. CONCLUSION: The RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a chemical heating device provides a portable, rapid and robust NAAT platform that has the potential to facilitate HIV-1 testing in resource-limited settings and POC.
Text: HIV-1 diagnostic tests are held to a high standard of performance, as diagnosis has a direct impact on patient care and reduction of transmission. Despite technological advances in the field of HIV diagnostics and the high sensitivity and specificity associated with most HIV diagnostic tests that are currently available, it is estimated that approximately 20% of HIV-infected individuals living in the United States remain undiagnosed [1] . Furthermore, testing sites have reported as many as 35 to 50% of individuals with an initial positive test result will not return for a confirmatory diagnosis if follow-up laboratory testing is required [2] . Rapid HIV antibodybased tests, which can be performed with minimal training and typically provide results in under 30 minutes [3] , have facilitated HIV testing at the point-of-care and subsequently increased the numbers of individuals aware of their serostatus [4] . Rapid tests are currently a key component of HIV screening at the point-of-care (POC), significantly expanding the diagnostic capabilities of testing sites in developed countries, as well as resource-limited settings.
Despite the advances made by the widespread availability of rapid tests, all antibody-based tests for the detection of HIV exhibit some limitations. HIV-specific antibody typically begins to appear around three weeks post-infection, allowing for detection by most antibody-based assays within 3-6 weeks [3, 5] . The window of time prior to or during early seroconversion may lead to false-negative test results in recently infected individuals. Additionally, accurate diagnosis of infants born to HIV-infected mothers can be challenging if based solely on antibody positivity, since vertically transferred maternal antibodies may persist for 12-18 months after birth [6, 7] . For confirmatory diagnosis of early HIV infection or infant diagnosis, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are preferred, as HIV-1 RNA can be detected as early as 10-12 days post infection and HIV-1 DNA and/or RNA are definitive indicators of active infection [5] . In their current form, however, NAAT's are not feasible for POC testing, because they are timeconsuming, expensive, and technically complicated. To date, the Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., http://www.fda.gov/ BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/ LicensedProductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/InfectiousDisease/ UCM080466) is the only FDA-approved NAAT for the diagnosis or confirmation of HIV-1 infection and it is only suitable for laboratory testing.
To meet the needs of HIV-1 diagnosis at the POC, a rapid NAAT that can be performed with minimal training, limited equipment, and a relatively short turnaround time (,1 hour)is desirable [8] . The development of a rapid NAAT has proven to be especially challenging since the technology involved in simplifying the test procedure often equates to increased equipment and material costs [8] . Additionally, the reduction in technical complexity should not compromise test sensitivity and specificity. For increased applicability at the POC, an increasing number of novel isothermal amplification techniques have been developed [9] . Isothermal amplification is an attractive alternative to traditional PCR or RT-PCR since thermalcycling is not required, allowing for greater versatility in terms of heating or amplification devices. One such amplification method, termed Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) [10] , has been optimized for the detection of DNA and/or RNA (RT-LAMP) from a wide range of bacterial and viral pathogens [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] , including HIV [20, 21] .
LAMP or RT-LAMP exhibits several characteristics that are ideal for integration into a rapid nucleic-acid based diagnostic test. The amplification reaction requires six primers specific for eight separate regions within the target sequence, contributing to the high specificity of the amplification method. Amplified material can typically be detected within 15-60 minutes when incubated at a constant reaction temperature of 60-65uC [22] . LAMP has also proven to be less sensitive to biological inhibitors than PCR [23, 24] , which enables direct amplification from clinical specimens, thereby eliminating the need for an additional nucleic acid extraction step. Direct amplification from plasma, whole blood, and oral fluid has previously been demonstrated for HIV-1 [20, 21, 25] . Lastly, immediate visual detection of amplified products is facilitated by the large amount of DNA that is generated by each reaction. Several groups have incorporated fluorescent detection methods into the LAMP assay for real-time or immediate naked-eye detection [15, 17, 21, 22, 26] .
The simplicity and isothermal nature of the LAMP procedure opens the door for the evaluation of low-tech integrated devices or novel heating elements, which are appropriate for low-resource settings, where costly equipment and electricity cannot be obtained. In this study, the HIV-1 RT-LAMP assay was evaluated using portable, non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) devices that generate heat from the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide and water [27, 28] . We demonstrated the temperature stability of the NINA heating devices and feasibility for POC testing of whole blood specimens from HIV-1 infected individuals.
Prototype NINA heaters were designed and provided by Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH, Seattle, WA), as described [27, 28] . Briefly, an amplification temperature of approximately 60uC was provided by the exothermic reaction of calcium oxide (CaO; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and water. The heating devices, containing the chemical reaction, were designed using thermally insulated, stainless-steel canisters with plastic screw-top lids (Fig. 1) . The lids were modified to contain three sample wells that fit standard 200 ml PCR tubes and were filled with a proprietary phase-change material (PCM) that was used to buffer the heat derived from the exothermic reaction, thereby providing a constant temperature. Lastly, plastic caps containing foam insulation were designed to fit on the top of the canister lids. The thermal profiles of the sample wells were measured and recorded using a digital thermometer (DaqPRO 5300 Data recorder; OMEGA Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CT).
DNA and RNA linearity panels were prepared to determine the sensitivity of the HIV-specific RT-LAMP assay. A DNA panel was generated from DNA extracted from the human monocytic cell line OM-10.1 [29] , using a QIAamp DNA blood mini kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA). Cell count was used to quantify the input DNA copy number, as a single integrated provirus is contained in each cell [29] . The extracted DNA was diluted tenfold in RNase-free water to create a linearity panel, ranging from 10 5 copies/ml to 10 3 copies/ml. An RNA linearity panel was obtained commercially (PRD801; SeraCare Life Sciences, Mil- ford, MA) and ranged from 2.9610 6 copies/ml to 8 copies/ml, as determined by Roche AMPLICOR HIV MONITOR TM v 1.5, Bayer VERSANT HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 Assay, bioMerieux NucliSensH HIV-1 QT, and Abbott Real Time HIV-1 m2000 TM . RNA was extracted from the panel members using a Viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN). Negative controls included DNA extracted from PBMC infected with HIV-2 SLRHC [30] and RNA extracted from HIV-2 NIH-Z purified virus (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc., Columbia, MD).
Whole blood from HIV-1 infected individuals was collected as part of a separate, IRB-approved study [31] , or obtained commercially (SeraCare Life Sciences). All HIV-positive samples were confirmed using the following tests: Genetic Systems HIV-1/ HIV-2 plus O EIA (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Redmond, WA), GS HIV-1 Western blot (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Aptima HIV-1 RNA assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., San Diego, CA), and Amplicor HIV-1 DNA assay (Roche Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ ). Viral and proviral loads are unknown, since the samples were tested with qualitative, nucleic acid-based assays. All clinical specimens evaluated in this study were obtained from individuals infected with subtype B HIV-1 virus. As a negative control, HIV-1 seronegative blood samples (SeraCare Life Sciences) were included in every experiment involving whole blood. A positive control included HIV-1 seronegative blood spiked with 5610 6 virus particles/ml of HIV-1 BaL (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc.).
HIV-1-specific RT-LAMP primers were designed to recognize a conserved sequence within the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene. The six primers required for the RT-LAMP reaction, forward outer (F3), backward outer (B3), forward inner (FIP), backward inner (BIP), and the loop primers (LoopF and LoopB), were designed using the PrimerExplorer V4 software (Eiken Chemical Co. Ltd.; http:// primerexplorer.jp/e/). The LAMP primers and amplification cycle have been described in detail by Nagamine et al. [32] . Additional modifications included a linker sequence of four thymidines inserted between the F2 and F1c sequences of the FIP primer, as described [20] , and the addition of the fluorescent molecule HEX to the 59 end of the LoopF primer. The labeled primer, along with a quencher probe, allowed for immediate visual detection of amplified products [21] . The quencher probe consisted of the complementary sequence of the LoopF primer with Black Hole Quencher-1 (BHQ-1) added to the 39 end. The HIV-1 HXB2 sequence (GenBank accession number AF033819) was used as the reference for generating the RT-LAMP primers. The sequences of the HIV-1 RT-specific primers and quencher are listed in Table 1 .
The RT-LAMP reaction was performed using the following reaction mix: 0.2 mM (final concentration) of each F3 and B3 primers, 1.6 mM of each FIP and BIP primers, 0.8 mM of each LoopF and HEX-LoopB primers, 0.8 M betaine (Sigma-Aldrich), 10 mM MgSO 4 , 1.4 mM dNTPs, 16 ThermoPol reaction buffer (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA), 16 U Bst DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) and 2 U AMV reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The reaction was carried out in a total volume of 25 ml for amplification of extracted nucleic acid, 10 ml of which constituted the sample. For amplification of whole blood specimens, a 100 ml reaction volume was used to facilitate visual detection of amplified products. Whole blood was added directly into the reaction at a total volume of 40 ml, following a 1:4 dilution with red blood cell lysis buffer (2.5 mM KHCO 3 , 37.5 mM NH 4 Cl, and 0.025 mM EDTA), as previously described [21] . The reaction mixture was incubated at 60uC for 60 minutes, using a GeneAmpH PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) or the NINA heaters. For reactions amplified in the thermalcylcer, an additional two minute heating step of 80uC was added at the end of the amplification cycle to terminate the reaction.
The reaction tubes were evaluated for the presence of amplification, following addition of the quencher probe at a 2:1 ratio of quencher to labeled-primer, as previously described [21] . Amplification was determined visually by observing fluorescence in the reaction tubes, using the UV lamp from a ChemiDoc XRS system (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). Amplification was confirmed by electrophoresis using a 1.2% agarose gel containing SYBRH Safe gel stain (Invitrogen), which was subsequently visualized using the ChemiDoc XRS system.
To compare temperature and amplification consistency, three NINA heaters were tested in parallel. The heating reaction was initiated by adding 18 g of CaO to each NINA canister, followed by 6 ml of water. The lid of each canister was then sealed to contain the exothermic reaction. After adding 200 ml of water to each of the sample wells, temperature recording was initiated. Reaction tubes were added to the sample wells once each reaction chamber reached a temperature of 58.5uC. For all samples incubated in the NINA heater, 15 ml of mineral oil was added to the reaction tube during the reaction mix preparation. The samples were incubated in the heaters for a total of 60 minutes. All reactions were carried out in a temperature-controlled laboratory with an ambient temperature of 28uC, unless otherwise stated. Following the amplification reaction, the samples were incubated for two minutes in a heat block set to 80uC. After each amplification cycle, the temperature profile of each device was analyzed by calculating the temperature mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum from the data provided by the DaqPRO 5300.
The stability of the NINA heaters at extreme low and high temperatures was evaluated by placing the canisters in a refrigerator set to 4uC or a 37uC incubator during the length of the amplification reaction. The temperature profiles were recorded and compared to those of reactions that occurred at the laboratory room temperature of 28uC.
To determine the sensitivity of RT-LAMP reaction using RTspecific primers, DNA and RNA linearity panels were tested in a thermalcycler. The limit of detection for HIV-1 DNA was 10 copies/reaction. For the RNA linearity panel, the sample containing 1700 copies/reaction was detected in all of the three replicates, while the sample containing 140 copies/reaction was detected in three out of five replicates (60%). For both DNA and RNA linearity panels, the two samples nearest the limit of detection were chosen to further evaluate the performance consistency between the thermalcycler and NINA heaters. In terms of positivity, the amplification results were consistent between all three heaters and the thermalcycler ( Table 2) . Since the RT-LAMP assay requires a constant temperature of 60uC for the length of the amplification reaction, the temperature profiles of the sample wells were compared over the course of the incubation and between all three NINA heaters. A representative temperature profile is displayed in Figure 2 , showing a steady reaction temperature at or close to 60uC for length of amplification reaction. During the 60 minute incubation, the average temperature for each device was 60.2, 59.8, and 59.7 (Table 3 ). The minimum temperature achieved during the reaction reflects the fact that the temperature of the sample port dropped temporarily after the sample tubes are added to the device, as shown in Figure 2 . The maximum temperature of the devices deviated from the desired reaction temperature of 60uC by less than one degree.
The ability of the NINA heaters to maintain a steady reaction temperature in a wide range of ambient temperatures is essential for POC testing, whether referring to an air-conditioned laboratory or high-temperature field site. To evaluate the performance of the NINA heaters at extreme low or high temperatures, the canisters were placed in a 4uC refrigerator or a 37uC incubator for the length of the amplification reaction. The limit of detection for the DNA and RNA linearity panels was similar to the results obtained in our temperature-controlled laboratory (28uC; Table 2 ). The greatest degree of temperature variation of the sample wells was observed at the ambient temperature of 4uC ( Table 3 ). The average temperature was approximately two degrees lower than the desired reaction temperature of 60uC. Additionally, the temperature of the devices tended to decline from their steady state during the last 20 minutes of the reaction (data not shown). The temperature profiles at the ambient temperature of 37uC, however, were similar to those at 28uC.
Whole blood samples from HIV-1 infected individuals were added directly into the RT-LAMP reaction and tested in the NINA heaters. Positivity of the clinical specimens was consistent between the thermalcycler and devices (Table 4 ). Amplification consistency was most evident with two of the patient samples (patient #4 and #5) that were only positive in one of the three replicates, regardless of the heating device that was used. All HIVnegative blood samples, included in each reaction, were negative (data not shown). A representative experiment using the NINA heaters is displayed in Figure 3 , showing detection by agarose gel and visual identification of fluorescence in the reaction tubes.
In this study, we demonstrate the performance of portable, inexpensive, non-instrumented nucleic acid (NINA) heaters for amplification of HIV-1 using RT-LAMP. The isothermal amplification reaction coupled with a device that generates heat from an exothermic chemical reaction, as opposed to grid electricity or battery power, comprises a point-of-care NAAT that is practical for use in resource-limited settings. The heating devices require minimal training and technical expertise to operate and take approximately 10-15 minutes to reach a reaction temperature of 60uC once the chemical reaction has been initiated [27, 28] . Furthermore, the temperature of the sample wells remain relatively stable at the desired reaction temperature of 60uC throughout the amplification reaction, as demonstrated by the heating profiles and the consistency in amplification between the devices and thermalcycler.
Since point-of-care testing may refer to an air-conditioned laboratory or a field site with high temperatures and humidity, the stability of the temperature generated by the heating devices must be reliable. Though the temperature profiles at a representative cold temperature of 4uC indicated a loss in reaction temperature towards the end of the 60 minute incubation, the temperature fluctuations were not significant enough to affect the amplification reaction. Regardless, this thermal effect could be mitigated with small modifications to the device to reduce heat loss at lower temperatures. It should be possible to extend the temperature range of the NINA heaters to 4uC and below by either adding a larger quantity of heating mixture, better insulation, or both. Of greater concern is the performance of the NINA heaters in hightemperature field sites, where temperature control is not an option.
We demonstrate no difference in the temperature stability of the NINA heaters and amplification consistency at an ambient temperature of 37uC as compared to our temperature-controlled laboratory.
For increased applicability for use at the POC, several modifications can be made to the NINA heaters. The prototype devices evaluated in this study contained only three sample wells; however, up to 16 sample wells can be added to the lid of the insulated canisters for a larger testing volume. In this study, samples were removed from the NINA heaters after the amplification reaction and heated for an additional two minutes in an 80uC heat block to terminate the reaction. While the additional heating step is not necessary to observe the amplified products from extracted nucleic acid, the short, high-temperature incubation facilitates the visual observation of the fluorescent label in the whole blood samples. Modifications may be made to the whole blood sample preparation method to eliminate the need for the heating step. Alternatively, a second temperature-moderating compartment can be added to the alternate end of the NINA canisters, so the samples can be removed from the amplification compartment and reinserted into the 80uC compartment. Lastly, the DaqPRO data recorder was used in this study for validation purposes only and would not be necessary for the final POC product.
The feasibility of using LAMP as a diagnostic method in resource-limited settings has been demonstrated for tuberculosis [33] . To reduce hands-on time and preparation error, the authors describe the use of reaction tubes pre-prepared with lyophilized reaction mix. For POC use, limited sample manipulation and reagent preparation is desired and, therefore, it is anticipated that the test procedure of the end product will include reconstituting the amplification reagents in water and adding the sample directly into the reaction tube. We demonstrate the use of the NINA heaters for amplification directly from whole blood specimens, eliminating the need for a time-consuming, nucleic acid extraction procedure and reducing the volume of sample needed for the amplification reaction. A total volume of 10 ml of whole blood was added to each reaction tube, which can easily be obtained by finger-stick in settings where venipuncture is not feasible. Additionally, our fluorescent detection method enables immediate visualization of amplified products in the absence of specialized equipment. To avoid cross-contamination of amplified material, it is preferred that the reaction tubes remain closed post-amplification. Future modifications will include optimizing the labeledprimer/quencher sequences so that all components can be added into the reaction mix prior to amplification. Due to availability, the Bio-Rad ChemiDoc system was used as the UV source in this study; however, an inexpensive keychain light would be more suitable for naked-eye detection at the POC. For sensitive and specific detection of diverse HIV-1 isolates, including non-B subtypes, identification of the optimal primer set/sets is a key step in the development of the RT-LAMP assay. Although all experiments performed in this study involved subtype B standards and specimens, ongoing research involves the continued development and optimization of RT-LAMP primers based on regions of the HIV-1 genome that are conserved among diverse subtypes. Future studies will include large-scale evaluation of clinical specimens with the optimized RT-LAMP assay and NINA device. In summary, the RT-LAMP isothermal amplification method used in conjunction with a simplified, chemical heating device exhibits characteristics that are ideal for a rapid NAAT for POC testing. The simplified, portable assay has the potential to fill an important gap in HIV-1 diagnostics, providing immediate knowledge or confirmation of HIV-1 infection status at the POC. | 1,580 | What percentage of patients do not return for followup after HIV testing? | {
"answer_start": [
2553
],
"text": [
"35 to 50%"
]
} | 4,438 |
538 | Clara Cell 10 kDa Protein Alleviates Murine Hepatitis Virus Strain 3-Induced Fulminant Hepatitis by Inhibiting Fibrinogen-Like Protein 2 Expression
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300492/
SHA: f0c2cd2793d71f1ea11a810442a2c06d5013e899
Authors: Yu, Haijing; Liu, Yang; Wang, Hongwu; Wan, Xiaoyang; Huang, Jiaquan; Yan, Weiming; Xi, Dong; Luo, Xiaoping; Shen, Guanxin; Ning, Qin
Date: 2018-12-13
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02935
License: cc-by
Abstract: Background: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious threat to human life, accompanied by massive and rapid necroinflammation. Kupffer cells, the major immune cell population involved in innate immune responses, are considered to be central for FH. Fibrinogen-like protein 2 (Fgl2) is a pro-coagulant protein that is substantially induced in macrophages upon viral infection, and Fgl2 depletion represses murine hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3) infection. Clara cell 10 kDa (CC10) protein is a secretory protein with anti-inflammatory properties in allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, its mechanisms of action and pathogenic roles in other disease are still unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the role of CC10 in FH and the regulation of Fgl2 by CC10. Methods: A mouse FH model was established by peritoneal injection of MHV-3. The mice received CC10 protein through tail vein injection before viral infection. Survival rate, liver function, liver histology, fibrin deposition, and necrosis were examined. The regulatory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression was investigated using THP-1 cells and mouse peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Results: In the mouse FH model induced by MHV-3, the survival rate increased from 0 to 12.5% in the CC10 group compared to that in the saline-only control group. Meanwhile, the levels of ALT and AST in serum were significantly decreased and liver damage was reduced. Furthermore, hepatic Fgl2, TNF-α, and IL-1β expression was obviously downregulated together with fibrin deposition, and hepatocyte apoptosis was reduced after administration of CC10 protein. In vitro, CC10 was found to significantly inhibit the expression of Fgl2 in IFN-γ-treated THP-1 cells and MHV-3-infected mouse peritoneal macrophages by western blot and real-time PCR. However, there was no direct interaction between CC10 and Fgl2 as shown by co-immunoprecipitation. Microarray investigations suggested that HMG-box transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was significantly low in CC10-treated and IFN-γ-primed THP-1 cells. HBP1-siRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial cells (HUVECs). Conclusion:CC10 protects against MHV-3-induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such effects may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
Text: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious life-threatening disease characterized by massive hepatocyte necrosis, severe liver damage, and high mortality. The underlying mechanisms and the pathogenesis of FH are not clear. However, accumulating evidence suggests that, regardless of the pathogenesis of FH, the host's inflammatory responses contribute to liver microcirculatory disorders and injuries. Accordingly, It has been shown that immune cell activation and inflammatory cytokines play an important role in FH (1) . In recent years, our laboratory has conducted extensive research on the pathogenesis of FH and found that immune cells play a key role in it. Kupffer cells, natural killer (NK) cells (2, 3) , cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), and double negative T-cells (DNT) (4) (5) (6) in liver and the cytokines that are produced by these cells cause liver damage.
Prothrombinase Fgl2 belongs to the fibrinogen superfamily and is produced by activated macrophages or endothelial cells, transforming prothrombin directly into thrombin, so as to quickly initiate the process of coagulation. This promotes the conversion of fibrinogen into fibrin, resulting in thrombosis (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) . Our study found that Fgl2 was highly expressed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and in liver tissue of humans or mice with severe viral hepatitis, and was positively related to the severity of the disease (13, 14) . Gene therapy targeting Fgl2 silencing showed that the survival rate of fulminant hepatitis mice increased from 0 to 33.3% (15) . Thus far, the discovery and related research involving Fgl2 have provided new insights into the molecular mechanism of hepatocyte necrosis in FH. In view of the important role of Fgl2 in severe viral hepatitis, investigations concerning the regulation of Fgl2 will be beneficial in the search for new strategies for treatment of severe hepatitis.
Clara cell 10 kDa protein (CC10), also considered to be uteroglobin, Clara cell secretory protein, is one of members of secretoglobin superfamily. Expressed in mucosal epithelial cells of organs (including lungs and nose) that communicated with the outside world (16) . CC10 has immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. Compared to wild-type mice, CC10-knockout mice exhibited excessive airway inflammation Abbreviations: FH, fulminant hepatitis; MHV-3, murine hepatitis virus strain 3; Fgl2, Fibrinogen-like protein 2; CC10, Clara cell 10 KDa protein; ALF, acute liver failure; PFU, plaque-forming units; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; PCA, pro-coagulant activity; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling. caused by allergic reaction and bacterial and viral infections (17) . Reduced levels of CC10 are associated with inflammatory and allergic airway diseases, including sinusitis, asthma and allergic rhinitis (18) (19) (20) (21) .
Previous studies and published articles show that CC10 protein can not only inhibit Th17 cell responses by inhibiting expression of related molecules of dendritic cells and cytokines in mice with allergic rhinitis, but also can inhibit chitosan-3 like protein 1 (22, 23) . Moreover, CC10 inhibits the expression of an important immune regulator, osteopontin (OPN), in models of allergic rhinitis (21) .
In this study, we investigated the role of CC10 in hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3)-induced FH in mice and explored whether CC10 protein could regulate Fgl2 in the disease process.
Female BALB/cJ mice (Shanghai Shilaike Animal Seed Center, Shanghai, China), 6-8 weeks of age, with a body weight of 18.0-20.0 g, were kept in Tongji Hospital with food and water. Mice were divided into two groups: CC10 group (experimental group) and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) group (control group). This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital. This study was reviewed and approved by the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital.
The human monocyte cell line THP-1 was purchased from the Cell Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were obtained from the Biology Treasure Center of Wuhan University, China. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line was acquired from the typical culture preservation commission cell bank, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) and CHO cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM), and THP-1 cells were maintained in RPMI 1,640 containing 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco Life Technologies, USA), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 mg/mL streptomycin and cultured at 37 • C, 50 mL/L CO 2 and 95% humidity.
Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were obtained from BALB/cJ mice. Cells were resuspended in RPMI 1,640 supplemented with 10% FBS at 1-2 × 10 6 cells/mL in a 6-well plate and incubated for 4 h. They were then washed with RPMI 1640 medium and non-adherent cells discarded. The adherent cells were macrophages and were incubated for a further 12 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were divided into two groups. One group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/mL) and in the other group, PBS was added. After 2 h of stimulation, 1,000 plaque forming units (PFUs) of MHV-3 was added to the cells, which were then cultured for 4 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were harvested and lysed for real-time PCR and western blotting analysis.
Cell apoptosis was detected by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) method with a TUNEL apoptosis detection kit (Roche, Switzerland). Briefly, 5 µm sections were deparaffinized, dehydrated through an alcohol series and incubated with proteinase K for 30 min at 37 • C. After stopping the proteinase K digestion reaction with PBS, the samples were incubated with terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase end-labeling cocktail (a mixture of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and dUTP at a ratio of 2:29, respectively), for 2 h at 37 • C in an immunohistochemistry wet box. Following washing and blocking, each section was supplemented with reagent (converter-POD) to cover the tissues and incubated for 30 min at 37 • C in a wet box. Then, the liver tissue sections were washed with PBS, and colored with diaminobenzidine (DAB) subsequently. Hepatocytes with nucleus stained brownish yellow were considered to be apoptotic cells.
The expression of Fgl2 on THP-1 cells was measured by flow cytometry (BD FACS Canto II, USA). Briefly, cells (2 × 10 5 per tube) were incubated with Human TruStrain FcX (Fc Receptor Blocking solution, BioLegend, USA) for 10 min at room temperature and then incubated in the dark with mouse anti-Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Abnova,) or normal goat serum (an isotype control) at 4 • C for 40 min. Cells were washed with PBS and incubated in the dark with PE-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody (1:50, BioLegend, USA) at 4 • C for 30 min. Cells were then washed with PBS and resuspended in 300 µL PBS for study.
Liver slices were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and then embedded in paraffin. Immunohistochemistry of liver tissues was performed using SP-9001 SPlink Detection Kits (Biotin-Streptavidin HRP Detection Systems) (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For immunohistochemistry staining, the expression of Fgl2, fibrinogen, Fas and TNF-receptor 1 in mouse liver tissues was detected with polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Proteintech, USA), polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse fibrinogen antibody (1:1,000, Abcam, EngLand), polyclonal rabbit antimouse Fas antibody (1:50, Abcam, EngLand), and polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse TNF-receptor 1 antibody (1:500, Abcam, EngLand), respectively. After incubation with an horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled goat IgG fraction to rabbit IgG Fc, the target protein was detected using a DAB kit (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China). The slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin and visualized under a microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).
Liver tissue and cells were homogenized in RIPA lysis buffer with phenyl methane sulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) protease inhibitor. Protein lysates were separated by SDS-PAGE, and western blotting was performed using a monoclonal mouse antihuman/mouse Fgl2 (1:750, Abnova), a monoclonal mouse antihuman HBP1 (1:100, Santa Cruz, USA), and a monoclonal rabbit anti-human/mouse β-actin (1:1,000, Cell Signaling Technology, USA).
Liver tissues were collected from MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice at 72 h, and total RNA was extracted using Trizol Reagent (Invitrogen, USA) and then reverse transcribed into cDNA by using ReverTra Ace qPCR RT kit (TOYOBO, Japan). The cDNA was then amplified by RT-PCR by using Dream Taq Green PCR Master Mix (2 ×) (Thermo Scientific, USA). Realtime quantitative PCR (qPCR) with SYBR Green Real-time PCR Master Mix (TOYOBO, Japan) was performed using a CFX96 real-time PCR detection system (Bio-Rad, USA) and mRNA levels were normalized with reference to those of the house keeping gene GAPDH. Primer sequences for qPCR amplification were as follows: mTNF-α forward, 5 ′ -TTT GAG ATC CAT GCC GTT GG-3 ′ ; mTNF-α reverse, 5 ′ -GCCA CCA CGC TCT TCT GT-3 ′ ; mIL-1β forward, 5 ′ -TGT AAT GAA AGA CGG CAC ACC-3 ′ ; mIL-1β reverse, 5 ′ -TCT TCT TTG GGT ATT GCT TGG-3 ′ . mFgl2 forward, 5 ′ -GCC AAA TGT GAG TCC CTG GAA-3 ′ ; mFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -TTC CAC CCA AGA GCA CGT TTA AG-3 ′ ; hFgl2 forward 5 ′ -ACA GTT CAG GCT GGT GGT-3 ′ ; hFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -GGC TTA AAG TGC TTG GGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 forward, 5 ′ -TGA AGC AGA AGC TGG GAGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 reverse,
THP-1 cells were treated with 100 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) (Sigma, USA) for 48 h to induce differentiation toward adherent macrophage-like cells as reported previously (24) . The CC10 group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml). After 2 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/ml) was added to these cells, which were then cultured for 12 h before they were collected for western blotting and real-time PCR studies.
The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were cultured in 10 cm cell culture dishes with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 80-90% confluence. Next, 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 (constructed in our lab) was mixed with 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hCC10 in serumfree DMEM. The mixture was then combined with Lipofectamine 2,000 (Invitrogen, USA) and mixed gently. After incubation at 27 • C for 20 min, the solution was added to CHO cells and incubated at 37 • C in 5% CO 2 . Four to Six hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, the cells were collected for co-immunoprecipitation analysis to evaluate the interaction of CC10 with Fgl2.
Both HUVEC and THP-1 cells express fgl2. However, in the transfection experiments, it is difficult to transfect the THP-1 cells with siRNA, so we use HUVEC instead of THP-1. Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were cultured in FIGURE 1 | CC10 protein increased survival rate and reduced liver damage in mice. (A) The survival rate of CC10 group is higher than the control group comprised of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice treated with saline. CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein. BALB/cJ mice then received 100 PFU of MHV-3 intraperitoneally 24 h later to develop fulminant viral hepatitis. Then, CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein following MHV-3 infection 24 h later. The survival rate was observed for 10 days (n = 24/group). Representative data from three independent experiments are shown. The survival curve was analyzed by using the Log-Rank Test. ***P < 0.001 compared with saline group. (B) Histopathology of liver tissues (H&E staining; original magnification, ×400, n = 5/group) at 72 h post-MHV-3 infection was evaluated in the two groups of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice. Livers were collected from saline-treated (a) and CC10-treated (b) BALB/cJ mice at 72 h after MHV-3 infection. Arrows point to inflammatory cell infiltration areas or necrotic regions with inflammation. (C) Effect of CC10 on serum ALT and AST levels (n = 6-8/group). Values represent means and standard error of three independent experiments performed in triplicate. **P < 0.01 compared with the saline group.
six-well plates with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 70-80% confluence. 50 pmol HBP1-siRNA was mixed with 125 µl serum-free DMEM. Two microliter Lipofectamine 2,000 was gently mixed with serum-free DMEM. After incubation at 27 • C for 5 min, the solution was added to HUVECs and incubated at 37 • C. Four hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, cells were collected for real-time PCR and western blot analysis to evaluate the effects of HBP1 on Fgl2. At 24 h after transfection, the CC10 group was supplemented with the CC10 protein (150 ng/mL). After 4 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/mL) was added to these cells. These cells were then cultured for 24 h before they were harvested for real-time PCR studies to evaluate the effects of CC10 on Fgl2 by HBP1. Negative control was used as a control.
To detect whether there was a potential interaction between CC10 protein and Fgl2, CHO cells were transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 for 48 h. Cells transfected with empty plasmid pcDNA3.1 (mock) were used as negative controls for CC10 gene transfection. Immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting were performed by using Pierce Co-Immunoprecipitation Kit (Pierce, USA). Total cell proteins were extracted as previously described (25) . The proteins were immunoprecipitated by mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). For co-immunoprecipitation experiments, western blotting was performed using both rat anti-human uteroglobin/SCGB1A1 Antibody (1:750, R&D, USA) Frontiers in Immunology | www.frontiersin.org and mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). Control isotype rat IgG1 was used as a negative control for primary antibodies.
The human CC10 coding region gene, including a 389 bp sequence, was amplified from homogenized human turbinate tissue by RT-PCR. In this study, the sequences of PCR primers for CC10 were as follows: hCC10-forward, 5 ′ -CCC TCC ACC ATG AAA CTCG-3 ′ ; hCC10-reverse, 5 ′ -TGA GAT GCT TGT GGT TTA TTG AAG-3 ′ . The PCR products were cloned into pEASY-T1 cloning vector (TransGEN, Beijing, China) and then subcloned into HindIII/XbaI site of pcDNA3.1 vector (Invitrogen, USA) to form eukaryotic expression plasmids pcDNA3.1-hCC10.
Microarray analysis was used to screen changes in genome-wide gene expression patterns in THP-1 cells with or without CC10 protein. The changes in over 47,000 human gene expression patterns were assessed using Affymetrix gene microarrays (Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0) (CapitalBio Co.,Ltd., Beijing, China). Three replicates were used for microarrays analysis.
Data obtained from the experiments are expressed as means ± SEM. Survival curve comparisons were performed with the Log Rank test. Multiple group analyses for data were evaluated by one-way analyses of variance. Analyses of two group results were performed using Student's t-test to evaluate the statistical significance of differences. Values of P < 0.05 indicated significance.
To establish an animal model of mouse FH, MHV-3 was injected intraperitoneally to BALB/cJ mice (24 mice/group). To further study the role of CC10 in FH, recombinant mouse CC10 protein (2 µg/mouse) or saline was administrated into the tail vein 24 h prior to MHV-3 infection. The same dose of CC10 protein or saline was then administered 24 h later. The survival rate of the CC10 and saline groups was observed for 10 days. The results showed that mice in the two groups began to die at 48 h after injection of MHV-3 and exhibited symptoms of horripilation, slow activity, and reduced food consumption. In the CC10 group 24 mice were alive on day 3 after infection, 4 mice alive on day 4, and 3 of 24 (12.5%) mice recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis. At the same time, in saline treated group, there were 5 mice alive on day 3, 1 mice alive on day 4 after infection, and no mice survived to day 5. That is to say, the mice in the saline group died within 3 or 4 days. Three of 24 (12.5%) mice of the CC10 group recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis ( Figure 1A) .
To better understand the mechanisms underlying the biological effects of the CC10 protein, liver function (ALT and AST levels in serum) and liver histology in mice of MHV-3-infected was performed. Liver tissues were harvested 72 h following MHV-3 infection, and liver histology was detected by H&E staining. These results showed that there was substantial inflammatory cell infiltration and widespread necrosis of hepatocytes in the liver tissue of the saline group mice (Figure 1Ba ). There were rare or no infiltrating inflammatory cells, and few or no hepatocyte necrosis in the livers of mice in the CC10 group 72 h after MHV-3 infection (Figure 1Bb) . Serum ALT and AST levels in mice were observed 72 h after MHV-3 infection. The results showed that serum ALT and AST levels in the saline group reached a peak 72 h after MHV-3 infection, but there was no significant increase in the CC10 group compared to the levels in the control group (P < 0.01, Figure 1C) . These results suggested that CC10 protein has a role in protection against MHV-3-induced liver injury in mice.
To further elucidate the mechanisms of reduced liver injury following CC10 protein injection, we investigated the cytokines TNF-α and IL-1β expression. Because these two cytokines play a crucial role in the liver damage of FH. They are characterized by an increase in apoptosis. Levels of TNF-α and IL-1β in liver tissues were markedly reduced in the CC10 group (as shown in Figure 2A) . Hepatic apoptosis (Figure 2B ) was significantly reduced in the CC10 group.
We and collaborators have a long standing interest in studying the role of fgl2 in viral hepatitis. Fgl2 has been verified to play an essential role in the progression of fulminant viral hepatitis as we appreciate from previous reports. We have provided liver pathology figures and liver function for MHV-3 infected mice with a fgl2 gene knockout as shown in Supplementary Figure 1 .
The data was comparable with previous reports from our center and collaborators. From this current study we shown that CC10 plays a protective role in liver damage.To study the related molecules of CC10 in MHV-3-induced FH mice, we evaluated whether there was crosstalk between Fgl2 and CC10. We found that the expression of Fgl2 in the liver of mice was reduced 72 h after MHV-3 infection and treatment with CC10 protein (Figures 3A,B) . Furthermore, fibrin deposition, an indicator of liver injury associated with Fgl2 expression in FH, was also decreased in the livers of CC10-treated mice compared to that in controls (Figure 3C ). This indicates that CC10 treatment reduced liver injury after viral infection by inhibiting Fgl2 expression.
We examined the effect of increasing doses of CC10 protein (0, 50, 150, and 300 ng/mL) on IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. CC10 treatment showed a 10.1% decrease in THP-1 cells compared to that in control after stimulation with 10 ng/mL IFN-γ for 12 h. CC10 protein inhibited Fgl2 expression between doses of 0 ng/mL and 300 ng/mL (Figure 4A ). In particular, 150 ng/mL CC10 protein had the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression among the doses, and we chose this dose for the following experiments. We explored the effect of different time points of stimulation with a concentration of 150 ng/mL CC10 protein. After stimulation with CC10 protein for 6, 12, and 24 h compared to the PBS control, the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression was noted at 12 h; hence, we chose this time point for the following studies ( Figure 4B ). An increasing number of studies suggest that macrophages are the primary source of Fgl2. In order to ascertain that CC10 has a direct effect on macrophages, we treated THP-1 cells with recombinant CC10 and assessed the expression of Fgl2. Unlike in controls, IFN-γ induced a significant increase in Fgl2 expression. This effect was attenuated when cells were treated with CC10 protein (Figures 4C,D) , revealing that CC10 directly reduces the levels of Fgl2 in macrophages. To further explore the possibility that CC10 protein directly acts on macrophages, we infected murine PEMs with MHV-3 in the presence of recombinant CC10 and determined Fgl2 expression. Compared to levels in the controls, MHV-3infected macrophages exhibited a significant increase in Fgl2 production, and this effect was abolished by using CC10 protein (Figures 5A,B) , indicating that CC10 directly modulates Fgl2 production in macrophages.
In order to determine genes that were downregulated after stimulation by CC10 protein, we used DNA microarray analysis to screen for differentially expressed genes. THP-1 cells were cultured and PMA was added to induce differentiation into macrophages. The production of Fgl2 was stimulated by IFNγ. The experimental group was treated with CC10 protein for microarray detection of differentially expressed genes. The results showed that the most obviously downregulated genes were UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, SOX4, HBP1, and Fgl2 (Supplementary Table 1) . And then these genes were tested by qPCR. However, UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, and SOX4 was not differentially expressed by qPCR, while HBP1 and fgl2 were still down-regulated genes. DNA microarray analysis identified HBP1 as a down-regulated gene involved in the pathological processes of the regulation of CC10.
Recently, very limited studies have explored the role of HBP1 in FH. Nevertheless, the mechanistic functions of HBP1 in FH remain largely unexplored. Therefore, we selected this gene for further study. qPCR analysis confirmed that mRNA levels of HBP1 were significantly decreased in THP-1 cells after CC10
protein stimulation compared to that in the PBS control group (Figure 6A ).
We knocked down HBP1 using HBP1-siRNA. Then, transfection of HBP1-SiRNA into HUVECs was detected by qPCR and western-blotting methods. As expected, HBP1 knockdown led to significantly decreased expression of HBP1 (Figures 6B,C) . Furthermore, HBP1 knockdown impaired expression of Fgl2 (Figure 6D ), suggesting that HBP1 was able to activate Fgl2.
HBP1-SiRNA was used to transfect HUVECs. Then, IFN-γ was added to induce the expression of Fgl2 followed by stimulation with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml) after 2 h. Finally, we explored the expression of Fgl2 by qPCR. The results showed that HBP1-SiRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in HUVECs (Figure 7) . That is to say, CC10 could suppress Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such an effect may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
It is well-known that CC10 protein can suppress the immune response. In animal models of allergic diseases of the respiratory tract, most of evidences confirm this inhibition (26) . Its function in FH has not been investigated yet. Here, we used a murine FH model established by MHV-3 infection to explore the effects of CC10 in this disease process. To determine the role of CC10 in the pathogenesis of FH, CC10 protein was injected into a mouse FH model established by MHV-3 infection. MHV-3-induced liver injury in CC10-treated mice occurred rarely and the areas of lesions were much fewer than those in saline-treated control mice. In summary, these results suggested that CC10 could reduce pathological liver damage in this FH model together with lower mortality rates followed by MHV-3 infection.
MHV-3 induced fulminant viral hepatitis progresses rapidly and infected mice die within 3-5 days. Previous studies suggested fgl2 played a vital role in this process with a 15-40% increase of survival when fgl2 was deleted (12, 15, 27, 28) . Multiple inflammatory factors or mediators including TNF-α and IFN-γ, IL-1β and C5aR have been demonstrated to promote FH progression with significant discrepancies between liver damage and survival rate (29) (30) (31) (32) , which is accordant with our observation that CC10 substantially alleviated liver injury though survival rate improved mildly. The survival rate based on hours may be more accurate to examine the effect of CC10 on FH.
It is speculated that fgl2 can mediate lethality in MHV-3-induced FH. This is due to the fact that fgl2 induces the deposition of fibrinogen, which leads to activation of the coagulation cascade and induction of procoagulant activity (15) . To determine whether the tissue necrosis was mediated by Fgl2 in CC10-treated mice following infection, Fgl2 expression was observed. Results suggested that the expression of Fgl2 was significantly increased in MHV-3-induced FH mice and CC10 treatment significantly reduced the production of Fgl2 in the infected liver and serum. In addition, decreased fibrinogen deposition was also observed in the livers of CC10-treated mice. Therefore, our research results strongly clarify that the lower mortality of CC10-treated mice after MHV-3 infection is due to the lower levels of Fgl2 and decreased fibrinogen deposition.
Indeed, it has been reported that Fgl2 is expressed on macrophages, and the expression of Fgl2 is believed to be induced by IFN-γ and TNF-α (22) . Cultured THP-1 cells activated by IFN-γ or IL-2 have been demonstrated, with induction of Fgl2 expression and enhanced activation of human prothrombin (23) . Therefore, in this study, we explored this cell line to investigate the modulation of CC10 on Fgl2. Surprisingly, we found that CC10 directly inhibited IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. As we know, IFN-γ has proved to be the main cytokine that leads to the development and progression of FH. Also, it was shown that IFN-γ might exert its own proinflammatory biological function through enhancing Fgl2 expression. Therefore, in our study, CC10 might counter the effect of IFN-γ in the setting of FH, which substantiates its role in FH. These results demonstrated that CC10 regulates the expression of Fgl2 in macrophages.
In the current study, we used co-immunoprecipitation to analyze binding between CC10 and Fgl2. In this study, we investigated possible protein-protein interactions between CC10 and Fgl2 in vitro. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2. Cellular proteins were immunoprecipitated with anti-CC10 antibody or anti-Fgl2 antibody. Immunoblotting was performed with anti-Fgl2 and anti-CC10 antibodies. Immunoprecipitation of protein extracts from pcDNA 3.1-CC10 and pcDNA3.1-Fgl2 co-transfected CHO cells with anti-Fgl2 or anti-CC10 antibody followed by western blotting with Fgl2 and CC10 antibodies indicated that CC10 did not co-immunoprecipitate with Fgl2, showing that there is no direct relationship between CC10 and Fgl2 (data not shown). The results showed that CC10 has no direct interaction with Fgl2. From our previous study the gene of fgl2 contributed profoundly in MHV-3 induced fulminant hepatitis and is extensively expressed in macrophages and endothelium (12, 33) . Our microarray indicated a CC10 down-regulated fgl2 expression and this is further confirmed by qPCR and Western blotting in vivo (peritoneal macrophages) and in vitro (THP-1, macrophage cell line). Therefore, it is reasonable to focus on macrophages to display the effect of CC10 on fgl2 expression and eventually mice survival. We entirely agree there may be other possibilities for a protective effect of CC10 to contribute to the disease process. This is worth further studies. The potential receptor of CC10 has not been revealed yet. Our previous study have demonstrated that CC10 have effect of dendritic cells in allergic rhinitis (34) . In this research, we evaluated the effect of CC10 on macrophages functions and found Fgl2 was substantially down-regulated upon CC10 treatment, therefore, we speculate that potential CC10 receptor may be also expressed on macrophages. The potential target of CC10 on other immune cells cannot be excluded.
DNA microarray analysis is one of the most powerful approaches for the potential identification of unexpected genes involved in pathogenic processes. By using this approach, HMGbox transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was found to be one of the most downregulated genes after CC10 treatment of THP-1 cells. HBP1 is a well-described transcriptional repressor that modulates expression of genes involved in cell cycle progression. In a recent study, it was found that HBP1 is a direct target of miR-21 and confirmed that HBP1 modulates the inhibitory function of miR-21-ASO in hepatosteatosis and carcinogenesis simultaneously (23) . HBP1 is an endogenous inhibitor of the Wnt signaling pathway in both normal and cancer cells. The tumor suppressor role of HBP1 has been reported in some malignancies, such as oral cancer and glioma (35) . However, an association between HBP1 and Fgl2 has not been investigated yet. The current study clearly demonstrated that CC10 protects against MHV-3 induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression. Such effects might be mediated by HBP1. However, the functional status of HBP1 in the CC10 pathway requires further research, and such studies are conducting in our laboratory.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that CC10 could limit the immunopathological damage in MHV-3-induced FH mice. Our results suggest that enhancing CC10 expression by an immunotherapeutic approach might be an effective treatment for FH.
HY performed all the described experiments and wrote the manuscript. YL assisted with some experiments, analyzed experimental results, and edited the manuscript. HW analyzed experimental results. XW reviewed and edited the manuscript. JH, WY, DX, XL, GS, and QN provided experimental help and design. | 1,631 | What is fibrinogen-like protein 2 (FgI2)? | {
"answer_start": [
748
],
"text": [
"a pro-coagulant protein"
]
} | 5,292 |
539 | Clara Cell 10 kDa Protein Alleviates Murine Hepatitis Virus Strain 3-Induced Fulminant Hepatitis by Inhibiting Fibrinogen-Like Protein 2 Expression
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300492/
SHA: f0c2cd2793d71f1ea11a810442a2c06d5013e899
Authors: Yu, Haijing; Liu, Yang; Wang, Hongwu; Wan, Xiaoyang; Huang, Jiaquan; Yan, Weiming; Xi, Dong; Luo, Xiaoping; Shen, Guanxin; Ning, Qin
Date: 2018-12-13
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02935
License: cc-by
Abstract: Background: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious threat to human life, accompanied by massive and rapid necroinflammation. Kupffer cells, the major immune cell population involved in innate immune responses, are considered to be central for FH. Fibrinogen-like protein 2 (Fgl2) is a pro-coagulant protein that is substantially induced in macrophages upon viral infection, and Fgl2 depletion represses murine hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3) infection. Clara cell 10 kDa (CC10) protein is a secretory protein with anti-inflammatory properties in allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, its mechanisms of action and pathogenic roles in other disease are still unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the role of CC10 in FH and the regulation of Fgl2 by CC10. Methods: A mouse FH model was established by peritoneal injection of MHV-3. The mice received CC10 protein through tail vein injection before viral infection. Survival rate, liver function, liver histology, fibrin deposition, and necrosis were examined. The regulatory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression was investigated using THP-1 cells and mouse peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Results: In the mouse FH model induced by MHV-3, the survival rate increased from 0 to 12.5% in the CC10 group compared to that in the saline-only control group. Meanwhile, the levels of ALT and AST in serum were significantly decreased and liver damage was reduced. Furthermore, hepatic Fgl2, TNF-α, and IL-1β expression was obviously downregulated together with fibrin deposition, and hepatocyte apoptosis was reduced after administration of CC10 protein. In vitro, CC10 was found to significantly inhibit the expression of Fgl2 in IFN-γ-treated THP-1 cells and MHV-3-infected mouse peritoneal macrophages by western blot and real-time PCR. However, there was no direct interaction between CC10 and Fgl2 as shown by co-immunoprecipitation. Microarray investigations suggested that HMG-box transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was significantly low in CC10-treated and IFN-γ-primed THP-1 cells. HBP1-siRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial cells (HUVECs). Conclusion:CC10 protects against MHV-3-induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such effects may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
Text: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious life-threatening disease characterized by massive hepatocyte necrosis, severe liver damage, and high mortality. The underlying mechanisms and the pathogenesis of FH are not clear. However, accumulating evidence suggests that, regardless of the pathogenesis of FH, the host's inflammatory responses contribute to liver microcirculatory disorders and injuries. Accordingly, It has been shown that immune cell activation and inflammatory cytokines play an important role in FH (1) . In recent years, our laboratory has conducted extensive research on the pathogenesis of FH and found that immune cells play a key role in it. Kupffer cells, natural killer (NK) cells (2, 3) , cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), and double negative T-cells (DNT) (4) (5) (6) in liver and the cytokines that are produced by these cells cause liver damage.
Prothrombinase Fgl2 belongs to the fibrinogen superfamily and is produced by activated macrophages or endothelial cells, transforming prothrombin directly into thrombin, so as to quickly initiate the process of coagulation. This promotes the conversion of fibrinogen into fibrin, resulting in thrombosis (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) . Our study found that Fgl2 was highly expressed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and in liver tissue of humans or mice with severe viral hepatitis, and was positively related to the severity of the disease (13, 14) . Gene therapy targeting Fgl2 silencing showed that the survival rate of fulminant hepatitis mice increased from 0 to 33.3% (15) . Thus far, the discovery and related research involving Fgl2 have provided new insights into the molecular mechanism of hepatocyte necrosis in FH. In view of the important role of Fgl2 in severe viral hepatitis, investigations concerning the regulation of Fgl2 will be beneficial in the search for new strategies for treatment of severe hepatitis.
Clara cell 10 kDa protein (CC10), also considered to be uteroglobin, Clara cell secretory protein, is one of members of secretoglobin superfamily. Expressed in mucosal epithelial cells of organs (including lungs and nose) that communicated with the outside world (16) . CC10 has immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. Compared to wild-type mice, CC10-knockout mice exhibited excessive airway inflammation Abbreviations: FH, fulminant hepatitis; MHV-3, murine hepatitis virus strain 3; Fgl2, Fibrinogen-like protein 2; CC10, Clara cell 10 KDa protein; ALF, acute liver failure; PFU, plaque-forming units; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; PCA, pro-coagulant activity; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling. caused by allergic reaction and bacterial and viral infections (17) . Reduced levels of CC10 are associated with inflammatory and allergic airway diseases, including sinusitis, asthma and allergic rhinitis (18) (19) (20) (21) .
Previous studies and published articles show that CC10 protein can not only inhibit Th17 cell responses by inhibiting expression of related molecules of dendritic cells and cytokines in mice with allergic rhinitis, but also can inhibit chitosan-3 like protein 1 (22, 23) . Moreover, CC10 inhibits the expression of an important immune regulator, osteopontin (OPN), in models of allergic rhinitis (21) .
In this study, we investigated the role of CC10 in hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3)-induced FH in mice and explored whether CC10 protein could regulate Fgl2 in the disease process.
Female BALB/cJ mice (Shanghai Shilaike Animal Seed Center, Shanghai, China), 6-8 weeks of age, with a body weight of 18.0-20.0 g, were kept in Tongji Hospital with food and water. Mice were divided into two groups: CC10 group (experimental group) and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) group (control group). This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital. This study was reviewed and approved by the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital.
The human monocyte cell line THP-1 was purchased from the Cell Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were obtained from the Biology Treasure Center of Wuhan University, China. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line was acquired from the typical culture preservation commission cell bank, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) and CHO cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM), and THP-1 cells were maintained in RPMI 1,640 containing 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco Life Technologies, USA), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 mg/mL streptomycin and cultured at 37 • C, 50 mL/L CO 2 and 95% humidity.
Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were obtained from BALB/cJ mice. Cells were resuspended in RPMI 1,640 supplemented with 10% FBS at 1-2 × 10 6 cells/mL in a 6-well plate and incubated for 4 h. They were then washed with RPMI 1640 medium and non-adherent cells discarded. The adherent cells were macrophages and were incubated for a further 12 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were divided into two groups. One group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/mL) and in the other group, PBS was added. After 2 h of stimulation, 1,000 plaque forming units (PFUs) of MHV-3 was added to the cells, which were then cultured for 4 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were harvested and lysed for real-time PCR and western blotting analysis.
Cell apoptosis was detected by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) method with a TUNEL apoptosis detection kit (Roche, Switzerland). Briefly, 5 µm sections were deparaffinized, dehydrated through an alcohol series and incubated with proteinase K for 30 min at 37 • C. After stopping the proteinase K digestion reaction with PBS, the samples were incubated with terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase end-labeling cocktail (a mixture of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and dUTP at a ratio of 2:29, respectively), for 2 h at 37 • C in an immunohistochemistry wet box. Following washing and blocking, each section was supplemented with reagent (converter-POD) to cover the tissues and incubated for 30 min at 37 • C in a wet box. Then, the liver tissue sections were washed with PBS, and colored with diaminobenzidine (DAB) subsequently. Hepatocytes with nucleus stained brownish yellow were considered to be apoptotic cells.
The expression of Fgl2 on THP-1 cells was measured by flow cytometry (BD FACS Canto II, USA). Briefly, cells (2 × 10 5 per tube) were incubated with Human TruStrain FcX (Fc Receptor Blocking solution, BioLegend, USA) for 10 min at room temperature and then incubated in the dark with mouse anti-Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Abnova,) or normal goat serum (an isotype control) at 4 • C for 40 min. Cells were washed with PBS and incubated in the dark with PE-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody (1:50, BioLegend, USA) at 4 • C for 30 min. Cells were then washed with PBS and resuspended in 300 µL PBS for study.
Liver slices were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and then embedded in paraffin. Immunohistochemistry of liver tissues was performed using SP-9001 SPlink Detection Kits (Biotin-Streptavidin HRP Detection Systems) (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For immunohistochemistry staining, the expression of Fgl2, fibrinogen, Fas and TNF-receptor 1 in mouse liver tissues was detected with polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Proteintech, USA), polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse fibrinogen antibody (1:1,000, Abcam, EngLand), polyclonal rabbit antimouse Fas antibody (1:50, Abcam, EngLand), and polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse TNF-receptor 1 antibody (1:500, Abcam, EngLand), respectively. After incubation with an horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled goat IgG fraction to rabbit IgG Fc, the target protein was detected using a DAB kit (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China). The slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin and visualized under a microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).
Liver tissue and cells were homogenized in RIPA lysis buffer with phenyl methane sulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) protease inhibitor. Protein lysates were separated by SDS-PAGE, and western blotting was performed using a monoclonal mouse antihuman/mouse Fgl2 (1:750, Abnova), a monoclonal mouse antihuman HBP1 (1:100, Santa Cruz, USA), and a monoclonal rabbit anti-human/mouse β-actin (1:1,000, Cell Signaling Technology, USA).
Liver tissues were collected from MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice at 72 h, and total RNA was extracted using Trizol Reagent (Invitrogen, USA) and then reverse transcribed into cDNA by using ReverTra Ace qPCR RT kit (TOYOBO, Japan). The cDNA was then amplified by RT-PCR by using Dream Taq Green PCR Master Mix (2 ×) (Thermo Scientific, USA). Realtime quantitative PCR (qPCR) with SYBR Green Real-time PCR Master Mix (TOYOBO, Japan) was performed using a CFX96 real-time PCR detection system (Bio-Rad, USA) and mRNA levels were normalized with reference to those of the house keeping gene GAPDH. Primer sequences for qPCR amplification were as follows: mTNF-α forward, 5 ′ -TTT GAG ATC CAT GCC GTT GG-3 ′ ; mTNF-α reverse, 5 ′ -GCCA CCA CGC TCT TCT GT-3 ′ ; mIL-1β forward, 5 ′ -TGT AAT GAA AGA CGG CAC ACC-3 ′ ; mIL-1β reverse, 5 ′ -TCT TCT TTG GGT ATT GCT TGG-3 ′ . mFgl2 forward, 5 ′ -GCC AAA TGT GAG TCC CTG GAA-3 ′ ; mFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -TTC CAC CCA AGA GCA CGT TTA AG-3 ′ ; hFgl2 forward 5 ′ -ACA GTT CAG GCT GGT GGT-3 ′ ; hFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -GGC TTA AAG TGC TTG GGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 forward, 5 ′ -TGA AGC AGA AGC TGG GAGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 reverse,
THP-1 cells were treated with 100 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) (Sigma, USA) for 48 h to induce differentiation toward adherent macrophage-like cells as reported previously (24) . The CC10 group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml). After 2 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/ml) was added to these cells, which were then cultured for 12 h before they were collected for western blotting and real-time PCR studies.
The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were cultured in 10 cm cell culture dishes with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 80-90% confluence. Next, 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 (constructed in our lab) was mixed with 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hCC10 in serumfree DMEM. The mixture was then combined with Lipofectamine 2,000 (Invitrogen, USA) and mixed gently. After incubation at 27 • C for 20 min, the solution was added to CHO cells and incubated at 37 • C in 5% CO 2 . Four to Six hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, the cells were collected for co-immunoprecipitation analysis to evaluate the interaction of CC10 with Fgl2.
Both HUVEC and THP-1 cells express fgl2. However, in the transfection experiments, it is difficult to transfect the THP-1 cells with siRNA, so we use HUVEC instead of THP-1. Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were cultured in FIGURE 1 | CC10 protein increased survival rate and reduced liver damage in mice. (A) The survival rate of CC10 group is higher than the control group comprised of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice treated with saline. CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein. BALB/cJ mice then received 100 PFU of MHV-3 intraperitoneally 24 h later to develop fulminant viral hepatitis. Then, CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein following MHV-3 infection 24 h later. The survival rate was observed for 10 days (n = 24/group). Representative data from three independent experiments are shown. The survival curve was analyzed by using the Log-Rank Test. ***P < 0.001 compared with saline group. (B) Histopathology of liver tissues (H&E staining; original magnification, ×400, n = 5/group) at 72 h post-MHV-3 infection was evaluated in the two groups of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice. Livers were collected from saline-treated (a) and CC10-treated (b) BALB/cJ mice at 72 h after MHV-3 infection. Arrows point to inflammatory cell infiltration areas or necrotic regions with inflammation. (C) Effect of CC10 on serum ALT and AST levels (n = 6-8/group). Values represent means and standard error of three independent experiments performed in triplicate. **P < 0.01 compared with the saline group.
six-well plates with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 70-80% confluence. 50 pmol HBP1-siRNA was mixed with 125 µl serum-free DMEM. Two microliter Lipofectamine 2,000 was gently mixed with serum-free DMEM. After incubation at 27 • C for 5 min, the solution was added to HUVECs and incubated at 37 • C. Four hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, cells were collected for real-time PCR and western blot analysis to evaluate the effects of HBP1 on Fgl2. At 24 h after transfection, the CC10 group was supplemented with the CC10 protein (150 ng/mL). After 4 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/mL) was added to these cells. These cells were then cultured for 24 h before they were harvested for real-time PCR studies to evaluate the effects of CC10 on Fgl2 by HBP1. Negative control was used as a control.
To detect whether there was a potential interaction between CC10 protein and Fgl2, CHO cells were transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 for 48 h. Cells transfected with empty plasmid pcDNA3.1 (mock) were used as negative controls for CC10 gene transfection. Immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting were performed by using Pierce Co-Immunoprecipitation Kit (Pierce, USA). Total cell proteins were extracted as previously described (25) . The proteins were immunoprecipitated by mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). For co-immunoprecipitation experiments, western blotting was performed using both rat anti-human uteroglobin/SCGB1A1 Antibody (1:750, R&D, USA) Frontiers in Immunology | www.frontiersin.org and mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). Control isotype rat IgG1 was used as a negative control for primary antibodies.
The human CC10 coding region gene, including a 389 bp sequence, was amplified from homogenized human turbinate tissue by RT-PCR. In this study, the sequences of PCR primers for CC10 were as follows: hCC10-forward, 5 ′ -CCC TCC ACC ATG AAA CTCG-3 ′ ; hCC10-reverse, 5 ′ -TGA GAT GCT TGT GGT TTA TTG AAG-3 ′ . The PCR products were cloned into pEASY-T1 cloning vector (TransGEN, Beijing, China) and then subcloned into HindIII/XbaI site of pcDNA3.1 vector (Invitrogen, USA) to form eukaryotic expression plasmids pcDNA3.1-hCC10.
Microarray analysis was used to screen changes in genome-wide gene expression patterns in THP-1 cells with or without CC10 protein. The changes in over 47,000 human gene expression patterns were assessed using Affymetrix gene microarrays (Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0) (CapitalBio Co.,Ltd., Beijing, China). Three replicates were used for microarrays analysis.
Data obtained from the experiments are expressed as means ± SEM. Survival curve comparisons were performed with the Log Rank test. Multiple group analyses for data were evaluated by one-way analyses of variance. Analyses of two group results were performed using Student's t-test to evaluate the statistical significance of differences. Values of P < 0.05 indicated significance.
To establish an animal model of mouse FH, MHV-3 was injected intraperitoneally to BALB/cJ mice (24 mice/group). To further study the role of CC10 in FH, recombinant mouse CC10 protein (2 µg/mouse) or saline was administrated into the tail vein 24 h prior to MHV-3 infection. The same dose of CC10 protein or saline was then administered 24 h later. The survival rate of the CC10 and saline groups was observed for 10 days. The results showed that mice in the two groups began to die at 48 h after injection of MHV-3 and exhibited symptoms of horripilation, slow activity, and reduced food consumption. In the CC10 group 24 mice were alive on day 3 after infection, 4 mice alive on day 4, and 3 of 24 (12.5%) mice recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis. At the same time, in saline treated group, there were 5 mice alive on day 3, 1 mice alive on day 4 after infection, and no mice survived to day 5. That is to say, the mice in the saline group died within 3 or 4 days. Three of 24 (12.5%) mice of the CC10 group recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis ( Figure 1A) .
To better understand the mechanisms underlying the biological effects of the CC10 protein, liver function (ALT and AST levels in serum) and liver histology in mice of MHV-3-infected was performed. Liver tissues were harvested 72 h following MHV-3 infection, and liver histology was detected by H&E staining. These results showed that there was substantial inflammatory cell infiltration and widespread necrosis of hepatocytes in the liver tissue of the saline group mice (Figure 1Ba ). There were rare or no infiltrating inflammatory cells, and few or no hepatocyte necrosis in the livers of mice in the CC10 group 72 h after MHV-3 infection (Figure 1Bb) . Serum ALT and AST levels in mice were observed 72 h after MHV-3 infection. The results showed that serum ALT and AST levels in the saline group reached a peak 72 h after MHV-3 infection, but there was no significant increase in the CC10 group compared to the levels in the control group (P < 0.01, Figure 1C) . These results suggested that CC10 protein has a role in protection against MHV-3-induced liver injury in mice.
To further elucidate the mechanisms of reduced liver injury following CC10 protein injection, we investigated the cytokines TNF-α and IL-1β expression. Because these two cytokines play a crucial role in the liver damage of FH. They are characterized by an increase in apoptosis. Levels of TNF-α and IL-1β in liver tissues were markedly reduced in the CC10 group (as shown in Figure 2A) . Hepatic apoptosis (Figure 2B ) was significantly reduced in the CC10 group.
We and collaborators have a long standing interest in studying the role of fgl2 in viral hepatitis. Fgl2 has been verified to play an essential role in the progression of fulminant viral hepatitis as we appreciate from previous reports. We have provided liver pathology figures and liver function for MHV-3 infected mice with a fgl2 gene knockout as shown in Supplementary Figure 1 .
The data was comparable with previous reports from our center and collaborators. From this current study we shown that CC10 plays a protective role in liver damage.To study the related molecules of CC10 in MHV-3-induced FH mice, we evaluated whether there was crosstalk between Fgl2 and CC10. We found that the expression of Fgl2 in the liver of mice was reduced 72 h after MHV-3 infection and treatment with CC10 protein (Figures 3A,B) . Furthermore, fibrin deposition, an indicator of liver injury associated with Fgl2 expression in FH, was also decreased in the livers of CC10-treated mice compared to that in controls (Figure 3C ). This indicates that CC10 treatment reduced liver injury after viral infection by inhibiting Fgl2 expression.
We examined the effect of increasing doses of CC10 protein (0, 50, 150, and 300 ng/mL) on IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. CC10 treatment showed a 10.1% decrease in THP-1 cells compared to that in control after stimulation with 10 ng/mL IFN-γ for 12 h. CC10 protein inhibited Fgl2 expression between doses of 0 ng/mL and 300 ng/mL (Figure 4A ). In particular, 150 ng/mL CC10 protein had the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression among the doses, and we chose this dose for the following experiments. We explored the effect of different time points of stimulation with a concentration of 150 ng/mL CC10 protein. After stimulation with CC10 protein for 6, 12, and 24 h compared to the PBS control, the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression was noted at 12 h; hence, we chose this time point for the following studies ( Figure 4B ). An increasing number of studies suggest that macrophages are the primary source of Fgl2. In order to ascertain that CC10 has a direct effect on macrophages, we treated THP-1 cells with recombinant CC10 and assessed the expression of Fgl2. Unlike in controls, IFN-γ induced a significant increase in Fgl2 expression. This effect was attenuated when cells were treated with CC10 protein (Figures 4C,D) , revealing that CC10 directly reduces the levels of Fgl2 in macrophages. To further explore the possibility that CC10 protein directly acts on macrophages, we infected murine PEMs with MHV-3 in the presence of recombinant CC10 and determined Fgl2 expression. Compared to levels in the controls, MHV-3infected macrophages exhibited a significant increase in Fgl2 production, and this effect was abolished by using CC10 protein (Figures 5A,B) , indicating that CC10 directly modulates Fgl2 production in macrophages.
In order to determine genes that were downregulated after stimulation by CC10 protein, we used DNA microarray analysis to screen for differentially expressed genes. THP-1 cells were cultured and PMA was added to induce differentiation into macrophages. The production of Fgl2 was stimulated by IFNγ. The experimental group was treated with CC10 protein for microarray detection of differentially expressed genes. The results showed that the most obviously downregulated genes were UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, SOX4, HBP1, and Fgl2 (Supplementary Table 1) . And then these genes were tested by qPCR. However, UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, and SOX4 was not differentially expressed by qPCR, while HBP1 and fgl2 were still down-regulated genes. DNA microarray analysis identified HBP1 as a down-regulated gene involved in the pathological processes of the regulation of CC10.
Recently, very limited studies have explored the role of HBP1 in FH. Nevertheless, the mechanistic functions of HBP1 in FH remain largely unexplored. Therefore, we selected this gene for further study. qPCR analysis confirmed that mRNA levels of HBP1 were significantly decreased in THP-1 cells after CC10
protein stimulation compared to that in the PBS control group (Figure 6A ).
We knocked down HBP1 using HBP1-siRNA. Then, transfection of HBP1-SiRNA into HUVECs was detected by qPCR and western-blotting methods. As expected, HBP1 knockdown led to significantly decreased expression of HBP1 (Figures 6B,C) . Furthermore, HBP1 knockdown impaired expression of Fgl2 (Figure 6D ), suggesting that HBP1 was able to activate Fgl2.
HBP1-SiRNA was used to transfect HUVECs. Then, IFN-γ was added to induce the expression of Fgl2 followed by stimulation with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml) after 2 h. Finally, we explored the expression of Fgl2 by qPCR. The results showed that HBP1-SiRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in HUVECs (Figure 7) . That is to say, CC10 could suppress Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such an effect may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
It is well-known that CC10 protein can suppress the immune response. In animal models of allergic diseases of the respiratory tract, most of evidences confirm this inhibition (26) . Its function in FH has not been investigated yet. Here, we used a murine FH model established by MHV-3 infection to explore the effects of CC10 in this disease process. To determine the role of CC10 in the pathogenesis of FH, CC10 protein was injected into a mouse FH model established by MHV-3 infection. MHV-3-induced liver injury in CC10-treated mice occurred rarely and the areas of lesions were much fewer than those in saline-treated control mice. In summary, these results suggested that CC10 could reduce pathological liver damage in this FH model together with lower mortality rates followed by MHV-3 infection.
MHV-3 induced fulminant viral hepatitis progresses rapidly and infected mice die within 3-5 days. Previous studies suggested fgl2 played a vital role in this process with a 15-40% increase of survival when fgl2 was deleted (12, 15, 27, 28) . Multiple inflammatory factors or mediators including TNF-α and IFN-γ, IL-1β and C5aR have been demonstrated to promote FH progression with significant discrepancies between liver damage and survival rate (29) (30) (31) (32) , which is accordant with our observation that CC10 substantially alleviated liver injury though survival rate improved mildly. The survival rate based on hours may be more accurate to examine the effect of CC10 on FH.
It is speculated that fgl2 can mediate lethality in MHV-3-induced FH. This is due to the fact that fgl2 induces the deposition of fibrinogen, which leads to activation of the coagulation cascade and induction of procoagulant activity (15) . To determine whether the tissue necrosis was mediated by Fgl2 in CC10-treated mice following infection, Fgl2 expression was observed. Results suggested that the expression of Fgl2 was significantly increased in MHV-3-induced FH mice and CC10 treatment significantly reduced the production of Fgl2 in the infected liver and serum. In addition, decreased fibrinogen deposition was also observed in the livers of CC10-treated mice. Therefore, our research results strongly clarify that the lower mortality of CC10-treated mice after MHV-3 infection is due to the lower levels of Fgl2 and decreased fibrinogen deposition.
Indeed, it has been reported that Fgl2 is expressed on macrophages, and the expression of Fgl2 is believed to be induced by IFN-γ and TNF-α (22) . Cultured THP-1 cells activated by IFN-γ or IL-2 have been demonstrated, with induction of Fgl2 expression and enhanced activation of human prothrombin (23) . Therefore, in this study, we explored this cell line to investigate the modulation of CC10 on Fgl2. Surprisingly, we found that CC10 directly inhibited IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. As we know, IFN-γ has proved to be the main cytokine that leads to the development and progression of FH. Also, it was shown that IFN-γ might exert its own proinflammatory biological function through enhancing Fgl2 expression. Therefore, in our study, CC10 might counter the effect of IFN-γ in the setting of FH, which substantiates its role in FH. These results demonstrated that CC10 regulates the expression of Fgl2 in macrophages.
In the current study, we used co-immunoprecipitation to analyze binding between CC10 and Fgl2. In this study, we investigated possible protein-protein interactions between CC10 and Fgl2 in vitro. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2. Cellular proteins were immunoprecipitated with anti-CC10 antibody or anti-Fgl2 antibody. Immunoblotting was performed with anti-Fgl2 and anti-CC10 antibodies. Immunoprecipitation of protein extracts from pcDNA 3.1-CC10 and pcDNA3.1-Fgl2 co-transfected CHO cells with anti-Fgl2 or anti-CC10 antibody followed by western blotting with Fgl2 and CC10 antibodies indicated that CC10 did not co-immunoprecipitate with Fgl2, showing that there is no direct relationship between CC10 and Fgl2 (data not shown). The results showed that CC10 has no direct interaction with Fgl2. From our previous study the gene of fgl2 contributed profoundly in MHV-3 induced fulminant hepatitis and is extensively expressed in macrophages and endothelium (12, 33) . Our microarray indicated a CC10 down-regulated fgl2 expression and this is further confirmed by qPCR and Western blotting in vivo (peritoneal macrophages) and in vitro (THP-1, macrophage cell line). Therefore, it is reasonable to focus on macrophages to display the effect of CC10 on fgl2 expression and eventually mice survival. We entirely agree there may be other possibilities for a protective effect of CC10 to contribute to the disease process. This is worth further studies. The potential receptor of CC10 has not been revealed yet. Our previous study have demonstrated that CC10 have effect of dendritic cells in allergic rhinitis (34) . In this research, we evaluated the effect of CC10 on macrophages functions and found Fgl2 was substantially down-regulated upon CC10 treatment, therefore, we speculate that potential CC10 receptor may be also expressed on macrophages. The potential target of CC10 on other immune cells cannot be excluded.
DNA microarray analysis is one of the most powerful approaches for the potential identification of unexpected genes involved in pathogenic processes. By using this approach, HMGbox transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was found to be one of the most downregulated genes after CC10 treatment of THP-1 cells. HBP1 is a well-described transcriptional repressor that modulates expression of genes involved in cell cycle progression. In a recent study, it was found that HBP1 is a direct target of miR-21 and confirmed that HBP1 modulates the inhibitory function of miR-21-ASO in hepatosteatosis and carcinogenesis simultaneously (23) . HBP1 is an endogenous inhibitor of the Wnt signaling pathway in both normal and cancer cells. The tumor suppressor role of HBP1 has been reported in some malignancies, such as oral cancer and glioma (35) . However, an association between HBP1 and Fgl2 has not been investigated yet. The current study clearly demonstrated that CC10 protects against MHV-3 induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression. Such effects might be mediated by HBP1. However, the functional status of HBP1 in the CC10 pathway requires further research, and such studies are conducting in our laboratory.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that CC10 could limit the immunopathological damage in MHV-3-induced FH mice. Our results suggest that enhancing CC10 expression by an immunotherapeutic approach might be an effective treatment for FH.
HY performed all the described experiments and wrote the manuscript. YL assisted with some experiments, analyzed experimental results, and edited the manuscript. HW analyzed experimental results. XW reviewed and edited the manuscript. JH, WY, DX, XL, GS, and QN provided experimental help and design. | 1,631 | What represses murine hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3) infection? | {
"answer_start": [
843
],
"text": [
"Fgl2 depletion"
]
} | 5,293 |
540 | Clara Cell 10 kDa Protein Alleviates Murine Hepatitis Virus Strain 3-Induced Fulminant Hepatitis by Inhibiting Fibrinogen-Like Protein 2 Expression
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300492/
SHA: f0c2cd2793d71f1ea11a810442a2c06d5013e899
Authors: Yu, Haijing; Liu, Yang; Wang, Hongwu; Wan, Xiaoyang; Huang, Jiaquan; Yan, Weiming; Xi, Dong; Luo, Xiaoping; Shen, Guanxin; Ning, Qin
Date: 2018-12-13
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02935
License: cc-by
Abstract: Background: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious threat to human life, accompanied by massive and rapid necroinflammation. Kupffer cells, the major immune cell population involved in innate immune responses, are considered to be central for FH. Fibrinogen-like protein 2 (Fgl2) is a pro-coagulant protein that is substantially induced in macrophages upon viral infection, and Fgl2 depletion represses murine hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3) infection. Clara cell 10 kDa (CC10) protein is a secretory protein with anti-inflammatory properties in allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, its mechanisms of action and pathogenic roles in other disease are still unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the role of CC10 in FH and the regulation of Fgl2 by CC10. Methods: A mouse FH model was established by peritoneal injection of MHV-3. The mice received CC10 protein through tail vein injection before viral infection. Survival rate, liver function, liver histology, fibrin deposition, and necrosis were examined. The regulatory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression was investigated using THP-1 cells and mouse peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Results: In the mouse FH model induced by MHV-3, the survival rate increased from 0 to 12.5% in the CC10 group compared to that in the saline-only control group. Meanwhile, the levels of ALT and AST in serum were significantly decreased and liver damage was reduced. Furthermore, hepatic Fgl2, TNF-α, and IL-1β expression was obviously downregulated together with fibrin deposition, and hepatocyte apoptosis was reduced after administration of CC10 protein. In vitro, CC10 was found to significantly inhibit the expression of Fgl2 in IFN-γ-treated THP-1 cells and MHV-3-infected mouse peritoneal macrophages by western blot and real-time PCR. However, there was no direct interaction between CC10 and Fgl2 as shown by co-immunoprecipitation. Microarray investigations suggested that HMG-box transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was significantly low in CC10-treated and IFN-γ-primed THP-1 cells. HBP1-siRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial cells (HUVECs). Conclusion:CC10 protects against MHV-3-induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such effects may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
Text: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious life-threatening disease characterized by massive hepatocyte necrosis, severe liver damage, and high mortality. The underlying mechanisms and the pathogenesis of FH are not clear. However, accumulating evidence suggests that, regardless of the pathogenesis of FH, the host's inflammatory responses contribute to liver microcirculatory disorders and injuries. Accordingly, It has been shown that immune cell activation and inflammatory cytokines play an important role in FH (1) . In recent years, our laboratory has conducted extensive research on the pathogenesis of FH and found that immune cells play a key role in it. Kupffer cells, natural killer (NK) cells (2, 3) , cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), and double negative T-cells (DNT) (4) (5) (6) in liver and the cytokines that are produced by these cells cause liver damage.
Prothrombinase Fgl2 belongs to the fibrinogen superfamily and is produced by activated macrophages or endothelial cells, transforming prothrombin directly into thrombin, so as to quickly initiate the process of coagulation. This promotes the conversion of fibrinogen into fibrin, resulting in thrombosis (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) . Our study found that Fgl2 was highly expressed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and in liver tissue of humans or mice with severe viral hepatitis, and was positively related to the severity of the disease (13, 14) . Gene therapy targeting Fgl2 silencing showed that the survival rate of fulminant hepatitis mice increased from 0 to 33.3% (15) . Thus far, the discovery and related research involving Fgl2 have provided new insights into the molecular mechanism of hepatocyte necrosis in FH. In view of the important role of Fgl2 in severe viral hepatitis, investigations concerning the regulation of Fgl2 will be beneficial in the search for new strategies for treatment of severe hepatitis.
Clara cell 10 kDa protein (CC10), also considered to be uteroglobin, Clara cell secretory protein, is one of members of secretoglobin superfamily. Expressed in mucosal epithelial cells of organs (including lungs and nose) that communicated with the outside world (16) . CC10 has immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. Compared to wild-type mice, CC10-knockout mice exhibited excessive airway inflammation Abbreviations: FH, fulminant hepatitis; MHV-3, murine hepatitis virus strain 3; Fgl2, Fibrinogen-like protein 2; CC10, Clara cell 10 KDa protein; ALF, acute liver failure; PFU, plaque-forming units; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; PCA, pro-coagulant activity; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling. caused by allergic reaction and bacterial and viral infections (17) . Reduced levels of CC10 are associated with inflammatory and allergic airway diseases, including sinusitis, asthma and allergic rhinitis (18) (19) (20) (21) .
Previous studies and published articles show that CC10 protein can not only inhibit Th17 cell responses by inhibiting expression of related molecules of dendritic cells and cytokines in mice with allergic rhinitis, but also can inhibit chitosan-3 like protein 1 (22, 23) . Moreover, CC10 inhibits the expression of an important immune regulator, osteopontin (OPN), in models of allergic rhinitis (21) .
In this study, we investigated the role of CC10 in hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3)-induced FH in mice and explored whether CC10 protein could regulate Fgl2 in the disease process.
Female BALB/cJ mice (Shanghai Shilaike Animal Seed Center, Shanghai, China), 6-8 weeks of age, with a body weight of 18.0-20.0 g, were kept in Tongji Hospital with food and water. Mice were divided into two groups: CC10 group (experimental group) and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) group (control group). This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital. This study was reviewed and approved by the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital.
The human monocyte cell line THP-1 was purchased from the Cell Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were obtained from the Biology Treasure Center of Wuhan University, China. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line was acquired from the typical culture preservation commission cell bank, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) and CHO cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM), and THP-1 cells were maintained in RPMI 1,640 containing 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco Life Technologies, USA), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 mg/mL streptomycin and cultured at 37 • C, 50 mL/L CO 2 and 95% humidity.
Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were obtained from BALB/cJ mice. Cells were resuspended in RPMI 1,640 supplemented with 10% FBS at 1-2 × 10 6 cells/mL in a 6-well plate and incubated for 4 h. They were then washed with RPMI 1640 medium and non-adherent cells discarded. The adherent cells were macrophages and were incubated for a further 12 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were divided into two groups. One group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/mL) and in the other group, PBS was added. After 2 h of stimulation, 1,000 plaque forming units (PFUs) of MHV-3 was added to the cells, which were then cultured for 4 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were harvested and lysed for real-time PCR and western blotting analysis.
Cell apoptosis was detected by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) method with a TUNEL apoptosis detection kit (Roche, Switzerland). Briefly, 5 µm sections were deparaffinized, dehydrated through an alcohol series and incubated with proteinase K for 30 min at 37 • C. After stopping the proteinase K digestion reaction with PBS, the samples were incubated with terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase end-labeling cocktail (a mixture of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and dUTP at a ratio of 2:29, respectively), for 2 h at 37 • C in an immunohistochemistry wet box. Following washing and blocking, each section was supplemented with reagent (converter-POD) to cover the tissues and incubated for 30 min at 37 • C in a wet box. Then, the liver tissue sections were washed with PBS, and colored with diaminobenzidine (DAB) subsequently. Hepatocytes with nucleus stained brownish yellow were considered to be apoptotic cells.
The expression of Fgl2 on THP-1 cells was measured by flow cytometry (BD FACS Canto II, USA). Briefly, cells (2 × 10 5 per tube) were incubated with Human TruStrain FcX (Fc Receptor Blocking solution, BioLegend, USA) for 10 min at room temperature and then incubated in the dark with mouse anti-Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Abnova,) or normal goat serum (an isotype control) at 4 • C for 40 min. Cells were washed with PBS and incubated in the dark with PE-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody (1:50, BioLegend, USA) at 4 • C for 30 min. Cells were then washed with PBS and resuspended in 300 µL PBS for study.
Liver slices were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and then embedded in paraffin. Immunohistochemistry of liver tissues was performed using SP-9001 SPlink Detection Kits (Biotin-Streptavidin HRP Detection Systems) (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For immunohistochemistry staining, the expression of Fgl2, fibrinogen, Fas and TNF-receptor 1 in mouse liver tissues was detected with polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Proteintech, USA), polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse fibrinogen antibody (1:1,000, Abcam, EngLand), polyclonal rabbit antimouse Fas antibody (1:50, Abcam, EngLand), and polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse TNF-receptor 1 antibody (1:500, Abcam, EngLand), respectively. After incubation with an horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled goat IgG fraction to rabbit IgG Fc, the target protein was detected using a DAB kit (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China). The slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin and visualized under a microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).
Liver tissue and cells were homogenized in RIPA lysis buffer with phenyl methane sulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) protease inhibitor. Protein lysates were separated by SDS-PAGE, and western blotting was performed using a monoclonal mouse antihuman/mouse Fgl2 (1:750, Abnova), a monoclonal mouse antihuman HBP1 (1:100, Santa Cruz, USA), and a monoclonal rabbit anti-human/mouse β-actin (1:1,000, Cell Signaling Technology, USA).
Liver tissues were collected from MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice at 72 h, and total RNA was extracted using Trizol Reagent (Invitrogen, USA) and then reverse transcribed into cDNA by using ReverTra Ace qPCR RT kit (TOYOBO, Japan). The cDNA was then amplified by RT-PCR by using Dream Taq Green PCR Master Mix (2 ×) (Thermo Scientific, USA). Realtime quantitative PCR (qPCR) with SYBR Green Real-time PCR Master Mix (TOYOBO, Japan) was performed using a CFX96 real-time PCR detection system (Bio-Rad, USA) and mRNA levels were normalized with reference to those of the house keeping gene GAPDH. Primer sequences for qPCR amplification were as follows: mTNF-α forward, 5 ′ -TTT GAG ATC CAT GCC GTT GG-3 ′ ; mTNF-α reverse, 5 ′ -GCCA CCA CGC TCT TCT GT-3 ′ ; mIL-1β forward, 5 ′ -TGT AAT GAA AGA CGG CAC ACC-3 ′ ; mIL-1β reverse, 5 ′ -TCT TCT TTG GGT ATT GCT TGG-3 ′ . mFgl2 forward, 5 ′ -GCC AAA TGT GAG TCC CTG GAA-3 ′ ; mFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -TTC CAC CCA AGA GCA CGT TTA AG-3 ′ ; hFgl2 forward 5 ′ -ACA GTT CAG GCT GGT GGT-3 ′ ; hFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -GGC TTA AAG TGC TTG GGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 forward, 5 ′ -TGA AGC AGA AGC TGG GAGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 reverse,
THP-1 cells were treated with 100 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) (Sigma, USA) for 48 h to induce differentiation toward adherent macrophage-like cells as reported previously (24) . The CC10 group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml). After 2 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/ml) was added to these cells, which were then cultured for 12 h before they were collected for western blotting and real-time PCR studies.
The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were cultured in 10 cm cell culture dishes with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 80-90% confluence. Next, 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 (constructed in our lab) was mixed with 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hCC10 in serumfree DMEM. The mixture was then combined with Lipofectamine 2,000 (Invitrogen, USA) and mixed gently. After incubation at 27 • C for 20 min, the solution was added to CHO cells and incubated at 37 • C in 5% CO 2 . Four to Six hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, the cells were collected for co-immunoprecipitation analysis to evaluate the interaction of CC10 with Fgl2.
Both HUVEC and THP-1 cells express fgl2. However, in the transfection experiments, it is difficult to transfect the THP-1 cells with siRNA, so we use HUVEC instead of THP-1. Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were cultured in FIGURE 1 | CC10 protein increased survival rate and reduced liver damage in mice. (A) The survival rate of CC10 group is higher than the control group comprised of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice treated with saline. CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein. BALB/cJ mice then received 100 PFU of MHV-3 intraperitoneally 24 h later to develop fulminant viral hepatitis. Then, CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein following MHV-3 infection 24 h later. The survival rate was observed for 10 days (n = 24/group). Representative data from three independent experiments are shown. The survival curve was analyzed by using the Log-Rank Test. ***P < 0.001 compared with saline group. (B) Histopathology of liver tissues (H&E staining; original magnification, ×400, n = 5/group) at 72 h post-MHV-3 infection was evaluated in the two groups of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice. Livers were collected from saline-treated (a) and CC10-treated (b) BALB/cJ mice at 72 h after MHV-3 infection. Arrows point to inflammatory cell infiltration areas or necrotic regions with inflammation. (C) Effect of CC10 on serum ALT and AST levels (n = 6-8/group). Values represent means and standard error of three independent experiments performed in triplicate. **P < 0.01 compared with the saline group.
six-well plates with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 70-80% confluence. 50 pmol HBP1-siRNA was mixed with 125 µl serum-free DMEM. Two microliter Lipofectamine 2,000 was gently mixed with serum-free DMEM. After incubation at 27 • C for 5 min, the solution was added to HUVECs and incubated at 37 • C. Four hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, cells were collected for real-time PCR and western blot analysis to evaluate the effects of HBP1 on Fgl2. At 24 h after transfection, the CC10 group was supplemented with the CC10 protein (150 ng/mL). After 4 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/mL) was added to these cells. These cells were then cultured for 24 h before they were harvested for real-time PCR studies to evaluate the effects of CC10 on Fgl2 by HBP1. Negative control was used as a control.
To detect whether there was a potential interaction between CC10 protein and Fgl2, CHO cells were transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 for 48 h. Cells transfected with empty plasmid pcDNA3.1 (mock) were used as negative controls for CC10 gene transfection. Immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting were performed by using Pierce Co-Immunoprecipitation Kit (Pierce, USA). Total cell proteins were extracted as previously described (25) . The proteins were immunoprecipitated by mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). For co-immunoprecipitation experiments, western blotting was performed using both rat anti-human uteroglobin/SCGB1A1 Antibody (1:750, R&D, USA) Frontiers in Immunology | www.frontiersin.org and mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). Control isotype rat IgG1 was used as a negative control for primary antibodies.
The human CC10 coding region gene, including a 389 bp sequence, was amplified from homogenized human turbinate tissue by RT-PCR. In this study, the sequences of PCR primers for CC10 were as follows: hCC10-forward, 5 ′ -CCC TCC ACC ATG AAA CTCG-3 ′ ; hCC10-reverse, 5 ′ -TGA GAT GCT TGT GGT TTA TTG AAG-3 ′ . The PCR products were cloned into pEASY-T1 cloning vector (TransGEN, Beijing, China) and then subcloned into HindIII/XbaI site of pcDNA3.1 vector (Invitrogen, USA) to form eukaryotic expression plasmids pcDNA3.1-hCC10.
Microarray analysis was used to screen changes in genome-wide gene expression patterns in THP-1 cells with or without CC10 protein. The changes in over 47,000 human gene expression patterns were assessed using Affymetrix gene microarrays (Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0) (CapitalBio Co.,Ltd., Beijing, China). Three replicates were used for microarrays analysis.
Data obtained from the experiments are expressed as means ± SEM. Survival curve comparisons were performed with the Log Rank test. Multiple group analyses for data were evaluated by one-way analyses of variance. Analyses of two group results were performed using Student's t-test to evaluate the statistical significance of differences. Values of P < 0.05 indicated significance.
To establish an animal model of mouse FH, MHV-3 was injected intraperitoneally to BALB/cJ mice (24 mice/group). To further study the role of CC10 in FH, recombinant mouse CC10 protein (2 µg/mouse) or saline was administrated into the tail vein 24 h prior to MHV-3 infection. The same dose of CC10 protein or saline was then administered 24 h later. The survival rate of the CC10 and saline groups was observed for 10 days. The results showed that mice in the two groups began to die at 48 h after injection of MHV-3 and exhibited symptoms of horripilation, slow activity, and reduced food consumption. In the CC10 group 24 mice were alive on day 3 after infection, 4 mice alive on day 4, and 3 of 24 (12.5%) mice recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis. At the same time, in saline treated group, there were 5 mice alive on day 3, 1 mice alive on day 4 after infection, and no mice survived to day 5. That is to say, the mice in the saline group died within 3 or 4 days. Three of 24 (12.5%) mice of the CC10 group recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis ( Figure 1A) .
To better understand the mechanisms underlying the biological effects of the CC10 protein, liver function (ALT and AST levels in serum) and liver histology in mice of MHV-3-infected was performed. Liver tissues were harvested 72 h following MHV-3 infection, and liver histology was detected by H&E staining. These results showed that there was substantial inflammatory cell infiltration and widespread necrosis of hepatocytes in the liver tissue of the saline group mice (Figure 1Ba ). There were rare or no infiltrating inflammatory cells, and few or no hepatocyte necrosis in the livers of mice in the CC10 group 72 h after MHV-3 infection (Figure 1Bb) . Serum ALT and AST levels in mice were observed 72 h after MHV-3 infection. The results showed that serum ALT and AST levels in the saline group reached a peak 72 h after MHV-3 infection, but there was no significant increase in the CC10 group compared to the levels in the control group (P < 0.01, Figure 1C) . These results suggested that CC10 protein has a role in protection against MHV-3-induced liver injury in mice.
To further elucidate the mechanisms of reduced liver injury following CC10 protein injection, we investigated the cytokines TNF-α and IL-1β expression. Because these two cytokines play a crucial role in the liver damage of FH. They are characterized by an increase in apoptosis. Levels of TNF-α and IL-1β in liver tissues were markedly reduced in the CC10 group (as shown in Figure 2A) . Hepatic apoptosis (Figure 2B ) was significantly reduced in the CC10 group.
We and collaborators have a long standing interest in studying the role of fgl2 in viral hepatitis. Fgl2 has been verified to play an essential role in the progression of fulminant viral hepatitis as we appreciate from previous reports. We have provided liver pathology figures and liver function for MHV-3 infected mice with a fgl2 gene knockout as shown in Supplementary Figure 1 .
The data was comparable with previous reports from our center and collaborators. From this current study we shown that CC10 plays a protective role in liver damage.To study the related molecules of CC10 in MHV-3-induced FH mice, we evaluated whether there was crosstalk between Fgl2 and CC10. We found that the expression of Fgl2 in the liver of mice was reduced 72 h after MHV-3 infection and treatment with CC10 protein (Figures 3A,B) . Furthermore, fibrin deposition, an indicator of liver injury associated with Fgl2 expression in FH, was also decreased in the livers of CC10-treated mice compared to that in controls (Figure 3C ). This indicates that CC10 treatment reduced liver injury after viral infection by inhibiting Fgl2 expression.
We examined the effect of increasing doses of CC10 protein (0, 50, 150, and 300 ng/mL) on IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. CC10 treatment showed a 10.1% decrease in THP-1 cells compared to that in control after stimulation with 10 ng/mL IFN-γ for 12 h. CC10 protein inhibited Fgl2 expression between doses of 0 ng/mL and 300 ng/mL (Figure 4A ). In particular, 150 ng/mL CC10 protein had the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression among the doses, and we chose this dose for the following experiments. We explored the effect of different time points of stimulation with a concentration of 150 ng/mL CC10 protein. After stimulation with CC10 protein for 6, 12, and 24 h compared to the PBS control, the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression was noted at 12 h; hence, we chose this time point for the following studies ( Figure 4B ). An increasing number of studies suggest that macrophages are the primary source of Fgl2. In order to ascertain that CC10 has a direct effect on macrophages, we treated THP-1 cells with recombinant CC10 and assessed the expression of Fgl2. Unlike in controls, IFN-γ induced a significant increase in Fgl2 expression. This effect was attenuated when cells were treated with CC10 protein (Figures 4C,D) , revealing that CC10 directly reduces the levels of Fgl2 in macrophages. To further explore the possibility that CC10 protein directly acts on macrophages, we infected murine PEMs with MHV-3 in the presence of recombinant CC10 and determined Fgl2 expression. Compared to levels in the controls, MHV-3infected macrophages exhibited a significant increase in Fgl2 production, and this effect was abolished by using CC10 protein (Figures 5A,B) , indicating that CC10 directly modulates Fgl2 production in macrophages.
In order to determine genes that were downregulated after stimulation by CC10 protein, we used DNA microarray analysis to screen for differentially expressed genes. THP-1 cells were cultured and PMA was added to induce differentiation into macrophages. The production of Fgl2 was stimulated by IFNγ. The experimental group was treated with CC10 protein for microarray detection of differentially expressed genes. The results showed that the most obviously downregulated genes were UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, SOX4, HBP1, and Fgl2 (Supplementary Table 1) . And then these genes were tested by qPCR. However, UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, and SOX4 was not differentially expressed by qPCR, while HBP1 and fgl2 were still down-regulated genes. DNA microarray analysis identified HBP1 as a down-regulated gene involved in the pathological processes of the regulation of CC10.
Recently, very limited studies have explored the role of HBP1 in FH. Nevertheless, the mechanistic functions of HBP1 in FH remain largely unexplored. Therefore, we selected this gene for further study. qPCR analysis confirmed that mRNA levels of HBP1 were significantly decreased in THP-1 cells after CC10
protein stimulation compared to that in the PBS control group (Figure 6A ).
We knocked down HBP1 using HBP1-siRNA. Then, transfection of HBP1-SiRNA into HUVECs was detected by qPCR and western-blotting methods. As expected, HBP1 knockdown led to significantly decreased expression of HBP1 (Figures 6B,C) . Furthermore, HBP1 knockdown impaired expression of Fgl2 (Figure 6D ), suggesting that HBP1 was able to activate Fgl2.
HBP1-SiRNA was used to transfect HUVECs. Then, IFN-γ was added to induce the expression of Fgl2 followed by stimulation with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml) after 2 h. Finally, we explored the expression of Fgl2 by qPCR. The results showed that HBP1-SiRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in HUVECs (Figure 7) . That is to say, CC10 could suppress Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such an effect may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
It is well-known that CC10 protein can suppress the immune response. In animal models of allergic diseases of the respiratory tract, most of evidences confirm this inhibition (26) . Its function in FH has not been investigated yet. Here, we used a murine FH model established by MHV-3 infection to explore the effects of CC10 in this disease process. To determine the role of CC10 in the pathogenesis of FH, CC10 protein was injected into a mouse FH model established by MHV-3 infection. MHV-3-induced liver injury in CC10-treated mice occurred rarely and the areas of lesions were much fewer than those in saline-treated control mice. In summary, these results suggested that CC10 could reduce pathological liver damage in this FH model together with lower mortality rates followed by MHV-3 infection.
MHV-3 induced fulminant viral hepatitis progresses rapidly and infected mice die within 3-5 days. Previous studies suggested fgl2 played a vital role in this process with a 15-40% increase of survival when fgl2 was deleted (12, 15, 27, 28) . Multiple inflammatory factors or mediators including TNF-α and IFN-γ, IL-1β and C5aR have been demonstrated to promote FH progression with significant discrepancies between liver damage and survival rate (29) (30) (31) (32) , which is accordant with our observation that CC10 substantially alleviated liver injury though survival rate improved mildly. The survival rate based on hours may be more accurate to examine the effect of CC10 on FH.
It is speculated that fgl2 can mediate lethality in MHV-3-induced FH. This is due to the fact that fgl2 induces the deposition of fibrinogen, which leads to activation of the coagulation cascade and induction of procoagulant activity (15) . To determine whether the tissue necrosis was mediated by Fgl2 in CC10-treated mice following infection, Fgl2 expression was observed. Results suggested that the expression of Fgl2 was significantly increased in MHV-3-induced FH mice and CC10 treatment significantly reduced the production of Fgl2 in the infected liver and serum. In addition, decreased fibrinogen deposition was also observed in the livers of CC10-treated mice. Therefore, our research results strongly clarify that the lower mortality of CC10-treated mice after MHV-3 infection is due to the lower levels of Fgl2 and decreased fibrinogen deposition.
Indeed, it has been reported that Fgl2 is expressed on macrophages, and the expression of Fgl2 is believed to be induced by IFN-γ and TNF-α (22) . Cultured THP-1 cells activated by IFN-γ or IL-2 have been demonstrated, with induction of Fgl2 expression and enhanced activation of human prothrombin (23) . Therefore, in this study, we explored this cell line to investigate the modulation of CC10 on Fgl2. Surprisingly, we found that CC10 directly inhibited IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. As we know, IFN-γ has proved to be the main cytokine that leads to the development and progression of FH. Also, it was shown that IFN-γ might exert its own proinflammatory biological function through enhancing Fgl2 expression. Therefore, in our study, CC10 might counter the effect of IFN-γ in the setting of FH, which substantiates its role in FH. These results demonstrated that CC10 regulates the expression of Fgl2 in macrophages.
In the current study, we used co-immunoprecipitation to analyze binding between CC10 and Fgl2. In this study, we investigated possible protein-protein interactions between CC10 and Fgl2 in vitro. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2. Cellular proteins were immunoprecipitated with anti-CC10 antibody or anti-Fgl2 antibody. Immunoblotting was performed with anti-Fgl2 and anti-CC10 antibodies. Immunoprecipitation of protein extracts from pcDNA 3.1-CC10 and pcDNA3.1-Fgl2 co-transfected CHO cells with anti-Fgl2 or anti-CC10 antibody followed by western blotting with Fgl2 and CC10 antibodies indicated that CC10 did not co-immunoprecipitate with Fgl2, showing that there is no direct relationship between CC10 and Fgl2 (data not shown). The results showed that CC10 has no direct interaction with Fgl2. From our previous study the gene of fgl2 contributed profoundly in MHV-3 induced fulminant hepatitis and is extensively expressed in macrophages and endothelium (12, 33) . Our microarray indicated a CC10 down-regulated fgl2 expression and this is further confirmed by qPCR and Western blotting in vivo (peritoneal macrophages) and in vitro (THP-1, macrophage cell line). Therefore, it is reasonable to focus on macrophages to display the effect of CC10 on fgl2 expression and eventually mice survival. We entirely agree there may be other possibilities for a protective effect of CC10 to contribute to the disease process. This is worth further studies. The potential receptor of CC10 has not been revealed yet. Our previous study have demonstrated that CC10 have effect of dendritic cells in allergic rhinitis (34) . In this research, we evaluated the effect of CC10 on macrophages functions and found Fgl2 was substantially down-regulated upon CC10 treatment, therefore, we speculate that potential CC10 receptor may be also expressed on macrophages. The potential target of CC10 on other immune cells cannot be excluded.
DNA microarray analysis is one of the most powerful approaches for the potential identification of unexpected genes involved in pathogenic processes. By using this approach, HMGbox transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was found to be one of the most downregulated genes after CC10 treatment of THP-1 cells. HBP1 is a well-described transcriptional repressor that modulates expression of genes involved in cell cycle progression. In a recent study, it was found that HBP1 is a direct target of miR-21 and confirmed that HBP1 modulates the inhibitory function of miR-21-ASO in hepatosteatosis and carcinogenesis simultaneously (23) . HBP1 is an endogenous inhibitor of the Wnt signaling pathway in both normal and cancer cells. The tumor suppressor role of HBP1 has been reported in some malignancies, such as oral cancer and glioma (35) . However, an association between HBP1 and Fgl2 has not been investigated yet. The current study clearly demonstrated that CC10 protects against MHV-3 induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression. Such effects might be mediated by HBP1. However, the functional status of HBP1 in the CC10 pathway requires further research, and such studies are conducting in our laboratory.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that CC10 could limit the immunopathological damage in MHV-3-induced FH mice. Our results suggest that enhancing CC10 expression by an immunotherapeutic approach might be an effective treatment for FH.
HY performed all the described experiments and wrote the manuscript. YL assisted with some experiments, analyzed experimental results, and edited the manuscript. HW analyzed experimental results. XW reviewed and edited the manuscript. JH, WY, DX, XL, GS, and QN provided experimental help and design. | 1,631 | What was the goal of this study? | {
"answer_start": [
1157
],
"text": [
"to determine the role of CC10 in FH and the regulation of Fgl2 by CC10"
]
} | 5,294 |
541 | Clara Cell 10 kDa Protein Alleviates Murine Hepatitis Virus Strain 3-Induced Fulminant Hepatitis by Inhibiting Fibrinogen-Like Protein 2 Expression
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300492/
SHA: f0c2cd2793d71f1ea11a810442a2c06d5013e899
Authors: Yu, Haijing; Liu, Yang; Wang, Hongwu; Wan, Xiaoyang; Huang, Jiaquan; Yan, Weiming; Xi, Dong; Luo, Xiaoping; Shen, Guanxin; Ning, Qin
Date: 2018-12-13
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02935
License: cc-by
Abstract: Background: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious threat to human life, accompanied by massive and rapid necroinflammation. Kupffer cells, the major immune cell population involved in innate immune responses, are considered to be central for FH. Fibrinogen-like protein 2 (Fgl2) is a pro-coagulant protein that is substantially induced in macrophages upon viral infection, and Fgl2 depletion represses murine hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3) infection. Clara cell 10 kDa (CC10) protein is a secretory protein with anti-inflammatory properties in allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, its mechanisms of action and pathogenic roles in other disease are still unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the role of CC10 in FH and the regulation of Fgl2 by CC10. Methods: A mouse FH model was established by peritoneal injection of MHV-3. The mice received CC10 protein through tail vein injection before viral infection. Survival rate, liver function, liver histology, fibrin deposition, and necrosis were examined. The regulatory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression was investigated using THP-1 cells and mouse peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Results: In the mouse FH model induced by MHV-3, the survival rate increased from 0 to 12.5% in the CC10 group compared to that in the saline-only control group. Meanwhile, the levels of ALT and AST in serum were significantly decreased and liver damage was reduced. Furthermore, hepatic Fgl2, TNF-α, and IL-1β expression was obviously downregulated together with fibrin deposition, and hepatocyte apoptosis was reduced after administration of CC10 protein. In vitro, CC10 was found to significantly inhibit the expression of Fgl2 in IFN-γ-treated THP-1 cells and MHV-3-infected mouse peritoneal macrophages by western blot and real-time PCR. However, there was no direct interaction between CC10 and Fgl2 as shown by co-immunoprecipitation. Microarray investigations suggested that HMG-box transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was significantly low in CC10-treated and IFN-γ-primed THP-1 cells. HBP1-siRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial cells (HUVECs). Conclusion:CC10 protects against MHV-3-induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such effects may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
Text: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious life-threatening disease characterized by massive hepatocyte necrosis, severe liver damage, and high mortality. The underlying mechanisms and the pathogenesis of FH are not clear. However, accumulating evidence suggests that, regardless of the pathogenesis of FH, the host's inflammatory responses contribute to liver microcirculatory disorders and injuries. Accordingly, It has been shown that immune cell activation and inflammatory cytokines play an important role in FH (1) . In recent years, our laboratory has conducted extensive research on the pathogenesis of FH and found that immune cells play a key role in it. Kupffer cells, natural killer (NK) cells (2, 3) , cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), and double negative T-cells (DNT) (4) (5) (6) in liver and the cytokines that are produced by these cells cause liver damage.
Prothrombinase Fgl2 belongs to the fibrinogen superfamily and is produced by activated macrophages or endothelial cells, transforming prothrombin directly into thrombin, so as to quickly initiate the process of coagulation. This promotes the conversion of fibrinogen into fibrin, resulting in thrombosis (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) . Our study found that Fgl2 was highly expressed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and in liver tissue of humans or mice with severe viral hepatitis, and was positively related to the severity of the disease (13, 14) . Gene therapy targeting Fgl2 silencing showed that the survival rate of fulminant hepatitis mice increased from 0 to 33.3% (15) . Thus far, the discovery and related research involving Fgl2 have provided new insights into the molecular mechanism of hepatocyte necrosis in FH. In view of the important role of Fgl2 in severe viral hepatitis, investigations concerning the regulation of Fgl2 will be beneficial in the search for new strategies for treatment of severe hepatitis.
Clara cell 10 kDa protein (CC10), also considered to be uteroglobin, Clara cell secretory protein, is one of members of secretoglobin superfamily. Expressed in mucosal epithelial cells of organs (including lungs and nose) that communicated with the outside world (16) . CC10 has immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. Compared to wild-type mice, CC10-knockout mice exhibited excessive airway inflammation Abbreviations: FH, fulminant hepatitis; MHV-3, murine hepatitis virus strain 3; Fgl2, Fibrinogen-like protein 2; CC10, Clara cell 10 KDa protein; ALF, acute liver failure; PFU, plaque-forming units; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; PCA, pro-coagulant activity; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling. caused by allergic reaction and bacterial and viral infections (17) . Reduced levels of CC10 are associated with inflammatory and allergic airway diseases, including sinusitis, asthma and allergic rhinitis (18) (19) (20) (21) .
Previous studies and published articles show that CC10 protein can not only inhibit Th17 cell responses by inhibiting expression of related molecules of dendritic cells and cytokines in mice with allergic rhinitis, but also can inhibit chitosan-3 like protein 1 (22, 23) . Moreover, CC10 inhibits the expression of an important immune regulator, osteopontin (OPN), in models of allergic rhinitis (21) .
In this study, we investigated the role of CC10 in hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3)-induced FH in mice and explored whether CC10 protein could regulate Fgl2 in the disease process.
Female BALB/cJ mice (Shanghai Shilaike Animal Seed Center, Shanghai, China), 6-8 weeks of age, with a body weight of 18.0-20.0 g, were kept in Tongji Hospital with food and water. Mice were divided into two groups: CC10 group (experimental group) and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) group (control group). This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital. This study was reviewed and approved by the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital.
The human monocyte cell line THP-1 was purchased from the Cell Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were obtained from the Biology Treasure Center of Wuhan University, China. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line was acquired from the typical culture preservation commission cell bank, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) and CHO cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM), and THP-1 cells were maintained in RPMI 1,640 containing 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco Life Technologies, USA), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 mg/mL streptomycin and cultured at 37 • C, 50 mL/L CO 2 and 95% humidity.
Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were obtained from BALB/cJ mice. Cells were resuspended in RPMI 1,640 supplemented with 10% FBS at 1-2 × 10 6 cells/mL in a 6-well plate and incubated for 4 h. They were then washed with RPMI 1640 medium and non-adherent cells discarded. The adherent cells were macrophages and were incubated for a further 12 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were divided into two groups. One group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/mL) and in the other group, PBS was added. After 2 h of stimulation, 1,000 plaque forming units (PFUs) of MHV-3 was added to the cells, which were then cultured for 4 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were harvested and lysed for real-time PCR and western blotting analysis.
Cell apoptosis was detected by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) method with a TUNEL apoptosis detection kit (Roche, Switzerland). Briefly, 5 µm sections were deparaffinized, dehydrated through an alcohol series and incubated with proteinase K for 30 min at 37 • C. After stopping the proteinase K digestion reaction with PBS, the samples were incubated with terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase end-labeling cocktail (a mixture of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and dUTP at a ratio of 2:29, respectively), for 2 h at 37 • C in an immunohistochemistry wet box. Following washing and blocking, each section was supplemented with reagent (converter-POD) to cover the tissues and incubated for 30 min at 37 • C in a wet box. Then, the liver tissue sections were washed with PBS, and colored with diaminobenzidine (DAB) subsequently. Hepatocytes with nucleus stained brownish yellow were considered to be apoptotic cells.
The expression of Fgl2 on THP-1 cells was measured by flow cytometry (BD FACS Canto II, USA). Briefly, cells (2 × 10 5 per tube) were incubated with Human TruStrain FcX (Fc Receptor Blocking solution, BioLegend, USA) for 10 min at room temperature and then incubated in the dark with mouse anti-Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Abnova,) or normal goat serum (an isotype control) at 4 • C for 40 min. Cells were washed with PBS and incubated in the dark with PE-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody (1:50, BioLegend, USA) at 4 • C for 30 min. Cells were then washed with PBS and resuspended in 300 µL PBS for study.
Liver slices were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and then embedded in paraffin. Immunohistochemistry of liver tissues was performed using SP-9001 SPlink Detection Kits (Biotin-Streptavidin HRP Detection Systems) (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For immunohistochemistry staining, the expression of Fgl2, fibrinogen, Fas and TNF-receptor 1 in mouse liver tissues was detected with polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Proteintech, USA), polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse fibrinogen antibody (1:1,000, Abcam, EngLand), polyclonal rabbit antimouse Fas antibody (1:50, Abcam, EngLand), and polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse TNF-receptor 1 antibody (1:500, Abcam, EngLand), respectively. After incubation with an horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled goat IgG fraction to rabbit IgG Fc, the target protein was detected using a DAB kit (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China). The slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin and visualized under a microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).
Liver tissue and cells were homogenized in RIPA lysis buffer with phenyl methane sulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) protease inhibitor. Protein lysates were separated by SDS-PAGE, and western blotting was performed using a monoclonal mouse antihuman/mouse Fgl2 (1:750, Abnova), a monoclonal mouse antihuman HBP1 (1:100, Santa Cruz, USA), and a monoclonal rabbit anti-human/mouse β-actin (1:1,000, Cell Signaling Technology, USA).
Liver tissues were collected from MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice at 72 h, and total RNA was extracted using Trizol Reagent (Invitrogen, USA) and then reverse transcribed into cDNA by using ReverTra Ace qPCR RT kit (TOYOBO, Japan). The cDNA was then amplified by RT-PCR by using Dream Taq Green PCR Master Mix (2 ×) (Thermo Scientific, USA). Realtime quantitative PCR (qPCR) with SYBR Green Real-time PCR Master Mix (TOYOBO, Japan) was performed using a CFX96 real-time PCR detection system (Bio-Rad, USA) and mRNA levels were normalized with reference to those of the house keeping gene GAPDH. Primer sequences for qPCR amplification were as follows: mTNF-α forward, 5 ′ -TTT GAG ATC CAT GCC GTT GG-3 ′ ; mTNF-α reverse, 5 ′ -GCCA CCA CGC TCT TCT GT-3 ′ ; mIL-1β forward, 5 ′ -TGT AAT GAA AGA CGG CAC ACC-3 ′ ; mIL-1β reverse, 5 ′ -TCT TCT TTG GGT ATT GCT TGG-3 ′ . mFgl2 forward, 5 ′ -GCC AAA TGT GAG TCC CTG GAA-3 ′ ; mFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -TTC CAC CCA AGA GCA CGT TTA AG-3 ′ ; hFgl2 forward 5 ′ -ACA GTT CAG GCT GGT GGT-3 ′ ; hFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -GGC TTA AAG TGC TTG GGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 forward, 5 ′ -TGA AGC AGA AGC TGG GAGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 reverse,
THP-1 cells were treated with 100 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) (Sigma, USA) for 48 h to induce differentiation toward adherent macrophage-like cells as reported previously (24) . The CC10 group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml). After 2 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/ml) was added to these cells, which were then cultured for 12 h before they were collected for western blotting and real-time PCR studies.
The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were cultured in 10 cm cell culture dishes with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 80-90% confluence. Next, 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 (constructed in our lab) was mixed with 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hCC10 in serumfree DMEM. The mixture was then combined with Lipofectamine 2,000 (Invitrogen, USA) and mixed gently. After incubation at 27 • C for 20 min, the solution was added to CHO cells and incubated at 37 • C in 5% CO 2 . Four to Six hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, the cells were collected for co-immunoprecipitation analysis to evaluate the interaction of CC10 with Fgl2.
Both HUVEC and THP-1 cells express fgl2. However, in the transfection experiments, it is difficult to transfect the THP-1 cells with siRNA, so we use HUVEC instead of THP-1. Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were cultured in FIGURE 1 | CC10 protein increased survival rate and reduced liver damage in mice. (A) The survival rate of CC10 group is higher than the control group comprised of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice treated with saline. CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein. BALB/cJ mice then received 100 PFU of MHV-3 intraperitoneally 24 h later to develop fulminant viral hepatitis. Then, CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein following MHV-3 infection 24 h later. The survival rate was observed for 10 days (n = 24/group). Representative data from three independent experiments are shown. The survival curve was analyzed by using the Log-Rank Test. ***P < 0.001 compared with saline group. (B) Histopathology of liver tissues (H&E staining; original magnification, ×400, n = 5/group) at 72 h post-MHV-3 infection was evaluated in the two groups of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice. Livers were collected from saline-treated (a) and CC10-treated (b) BALB/cJ mice at 72 h after MHV-3 infection. Arrows point to inflammatory cell infiltration areas or necrotic regions with inflammation. (C) Effect of CC10 on serum ALT and AST levels (n = 6-8/group). Values represent means and standard error of three independent experiments performed in triplicate. **P < 0.01 compared with the saline group.
six-well plates with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 70-80% confluence. 50 pmol HBP1-siRNA was mixed with 125 µl serum-free DMEM. Two microliter Lipofectamine 2,000 was gently mixed with serum-free DMEM. After incubation at 27 • C for 5 min, the solution was added to HUVECs and incubated at 37 • C. Four hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, cells were collected for real-time PCR and western blot analysis to evaluate the effects of HBP1 on Fgl2. At 24 h after transfection, the CC10 group was supplemented with the CC10 protein (150 ng/mL). After 4 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/mL) was added to these cells. These cells were then cultured for 24 h before they were harvested for real-time PCR studies to evaluate the effects of CC10 on Fgl2 by HBP1. Negative control was used as a control.
To detect whether there was a potential interaction between CC10 protein and Fgl2, CHO cells were transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 for 48 h. Cells transfected with empty plasmid pcDNA3.1 (mock) were used as negative controls for CC10 gene transfection. Immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting were performed by using Pierce Co-Immunoprecipitation Kit (Pierce, USA). Total cell proteins were extracted as previously described (25) . The proteins were immunoprecipitated by mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). For co-immunoprecipitation experiments, western blotting was performed using both rat anti-human uteroglobin/SCGB1A1 Antibody (1:750, R&D, USA) Frontiers in Immunology | www.frontiersin.org and mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). Control isotype rat IgG1 was used as a negative control for primary antibodies.
The human CC10 coding region gene, including a 389 bp sequence, was amplified from homogenized human turbinate tissue by RT-PCR. In this study, the sequences of PCR primers for CC10 were as follows: hCC10-forward, 5 ′ -CCC TCC ACC ATG AAA CTCG-3 ′ ; hCC10-reverse, 5 ′ -TGA GAT GCT TGT GGT TTA TTG AAG-3 ′ . The PCR products were cloned into pEASY-T1 cloning vector (TransGEN, Beijing, China) and then subcloned into HindIII/XbaI site of pcDNA3.1 vector (Invitrogen, USA) to form eukaryotic expression plasmids pcDNA3.1-hCC10.
Microarray analysis was used to screen changes in genome-wide gene expression patterns in THP-1 cells with or without CC10 protein. The changes in over 47,000 human gene expression patterns were assessed using Affymetrix gene microarrays (Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0) (CapitalBio Co.,Ltd., Beijing, China). Three replicates were used for microarrays analysis.
Data obtained from the experiments are expressed as means ± SEM. Survival curve comparisons were performed with the Log Rank test. Multiple group analyses for data were evaluated by one-way analyses of variance. Analyses of two group results were performed using Student's t-test to evaluate the statistical significance of differences. Values of P < 0.05 indicated significance.
To establish an animal model of mouse FH, MHV-3 was injected intraperitoneally to BALB/cJ mice (24 mice/group). To further study the role of CC10 in FH, recombinant mouse CC10 protein (2 µg/mouse) or saline was administrated into the tail vein 24 h prior to MHV-3 infection. The same dose of CC10 protein or saline was then administered 24 h later. The survival rate of the CC10 and saline groups was observed for 10 days. The results showed that mice in the two groups began to die at 48 h after injection of MHV-3 and exhibited symptoms of horripilation, slow activity, and reduced food consumption. In the CC10 group 24 mice were alive on day 3 after infection, 4 mice alive on day 4, and 3 of 24 (12.5%) mice recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis. At the same time, in saline treated group, there were 5 mice alive on day 3, 1 mice alive on day 4 after infection, and no mice survived to day 5. That is to say, the mice in the saline group died within 3 or 4 days. Three of 24 (12.5%) mice of the CC10 group recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis ( Figure 1A) .
To better understand the mechanisms underlying the biological effects of the CC10 protein, liver function (ALT and AST levels in serum) and liver histology in mice of MHV-3-infected was performed. Liver tissues were harvested 72 h following MHV-3 infection, and liver histology was detected by H&E staining. These results showed that there was substantial inflammatory cell infiltration and widespread necrosis of hepatocytes in the liver tissue of the saline group mice (Figure 1Ba ). There were rare or no infiltrating inflammatory cells, and few or no hepatocyte necrosis in the livers of mice in the CC10 group 72 h after MHV-3 infection (Figure 1Bb) . Serum ALT and AST levels in mice were observed 72 h after MHV-3 infection. The results showed that serum ALT and AST levels in the saline group reached a peak 72 h after MHV-3 infection, but there was no significant increase in the CC10 group compared to the levels in the control group (P < 0.01, Figure 1C) . These results suggested that CC10 protein has a role in protection against MHV-3-induced liver injury in mice.
To further elucidate the mechanisms of reduced liver injury following CC10 protein injection, we investigated the cytokines TNF-α and IL-1β expression. Because these two cytokines play a crucial role in the liver damage of FH. They are characterized by an increase in apoptosis. Levels of TNF-α and IL-1β in liver tissues were markedly reduced in the CC10 group (as shown in Figure 2A) . Hepatic apoptosis (Figure 2B ) was significantly reduced in the CC10 group.
We and collaborators have a long standing interest in studying the role of fgl2 in viral hepatitis. Fgl2 has been verified to play an essential role in the progression of fulminant viral hepatitis as we appreciate from previous reports. We have provided liver pathology figures and liver function for MHV-3 infected mice with a fgl2 gene knockout as shown in Supplementary Figure 1 .
The data was comparable with previous reports from our center and collaborators. From this current study we shown that CC10 plays a protective role in liver damage.To study the related molecules of CC10 in MHV-3-induced FH mice, we evaluated whether there was crosstalk between Fgl2 and CC10. We found that the expression of Fgl2 in the liver of mice was reduced 72 h after MHV-3 infection and treatment with CC10 protein (Figures 3A,B) . Furthermore, fibrin deposition, an indicator of liver injury associated with Fgl2 expression in FH, was also decreased in the livers of CC10-treated mice compared to that in controls (Figure 3C ). This indicates that CC10 treatment reduced liver injury after viral infection by inhibiting Fgl2 expression.
We examined the effect of increasing doses of CC10 protein (0, 50, 150, and 300 ng/mL) on IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. CC10 treatment showed a 10.1% decrease in THP-1 cells compared to that in control after stimulation with 10 ng/mL IFN-γ for 12 h. CC10 protein inhibited Fgl2 expression between doses of 0 ng/mL and 300 ng/mL (Figure 4A ). In particular, 150 ng/mL CC10 protein had the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression among the doses, and we chose this dose for the following experiments. We explored the effect of different time points of stimulation with a concentration of 150 ng/mL CC10 protein. After stimulation with CC10 protein for 6, 12, and 24 h compared to the PBS control, the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression was noted at 12 h; hence, we chose this time point for the following studies ( Figure 4B ). An increasing number of studies suggest that macrophages are the primary source of Fgl2. In order to ascertain that CC10 has a direct effect on macrophages, we treated THP-1 cells with recombinant CC10 and assessed the expression of Fgl2. Unlike in controls, IFN-γ induced a significant increase in Fgl2 expression. This effect was attenuated when cells were treated with CC10 protein (Figures 4C,D) , revealing that CC10 directly reduces the levels of Fgl2 in macrophages. To further explore the possibility that CC10 protein directly acts on macrophages, we infected murine PEMs with MHV-3 in the presence of recombinant CC10 and determined Fgl2 expression. Compared to levels in the controls, MHV-3infected macrophages exhibited a significant increase in Fgl2 production, and this effect was abolished by using CC10 protein (Figures 5A,B) , indicating that CC10 directly modulates Fgl2 production in macrophages.
In order to determine genes that were downregulated after stimulation by CC10 protein, we used DNA microarray analysis to screen for differentially expressed genes. THP-1 cells were cultured and PMA was added to induce differentiation into macrophages. The production of Fgl2 was stimulated by IFNγ. The experimental group was treated with CC10 protein for microarray detection of differentially expressed genes. The results showed that the most obviously downregulated genes were UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, SOX4, HBP1, and Fgl2 (Supplementary Table 1) . And then these genes were tested by qPCR. However, UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, and SOX4 was not differentially expressed by qPCR, while HBP1 and fgl2 were still down-regulated genes. DNA microarray analysis identified HBP1 as a down-regulated gene involved in the pathological processes of the regulation of CC10.
Recently, very limited studies have explored the role of HBP1 in FH. Nevertheless, the mechanistic functions of HBP1 in FH remain largely unexplored. Therefore, we selected this gene for further study. qPCR analysis confirmed that mRNA levels of HBP1 were significantly decreased in THP-1 cells after CC10
protein stimulation compared to that in the PBS control group (Figure 6A ).
We knocked down HBP1 using HBP1-siRNA. Then, transfection of HBP1-SiRNA into HUVECs was detected by qPCR and western-blotting methods. As expected, HBP1 knockdown led to significantly decreased expression of HBP1 (Figures 6B,C) . Furthermore, HBP1 knockdown impaired expression of Fgl2 (Figure 6D ), suggesting that HBP1 was able to activate Fgl2.
HBP1-SiRNA was used to transfect HUVECs. Then, IFN-γ was added to induce the expression of Fgl2 followed by stimulation with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml) after 2 h. Finally, we explored the expression of Fgl2 by qPCR. The results showed that HBP1-SiRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in HUVECs (Figure 7) . That is to say, CC10 could suppress Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such an effect may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
It is well-known that CC10 protein can suppress the immune response. In animal models of allergic diseases of the respiratory tract, most of evidences confirm this inhibition (26) . Its function in FH has not been investigated yet. Here, we used a murine FH model established by MHV-3 infection to explore the effects of CC10 in this disease process. To determine the role of CC10 in the pathogenesis of FH, CC10 protein was injected into a mouse FH model established by MHV-3 infection. MHV-3-induced liver injury in CC10-treated mice occurred rarely and the areas of lesions were much fewer than those in saline-treated control mice. In summary, these results suggested that CC10 could reduce pathological liver damage in this FH model together with lower mortality rates followed by MHV-3 infection.
MHV-3 induced fulminant viral hepatitis progresses rapidly and infected mice die within 3-5 days. Previous studies suggested fgl2 played a vital role in this process with a 15-40% increase of survival when fgl2 was deleted (12, 15, 27, 28) . Multiple inflammatory factors or mediators including TNF-α and IFN-γ, IL-1β and C5aR have been demonstrated to promote FH progression with significant discrepancies between liver damage and survival rate (29) (30) (31) (32) , which is accordant with our observation that CC10 substantially alleviated liver injury though survival rate improved mildly. The survival rate based on hours may be more accurate to examine the effect of CC10 on FH.
It is speculated that fgl2 can mediate lethality in MHV-3-induced FH. This is due to the fact that fgl2 induces the deposition of fibrinogen, which leads to activation of the coagulation cascade and induction of procoagulant activity (15) . To determine whether the tissue necrosis was mediated by Fgl2 in CC10-treated mice following infection, Fgl2 expression was observed. Results suggested that the expression of Fgl2 was significantly increased in MHV-3-induced FH mice and CC10 treatment significantly reduced the production of Fgl2 in the infected liver and serum. In addition, decreased fibrinogen deposition was also observed in the livers of CC10-treated mice. Therefore, our research results strongly clarify that the lower mortality of CC10-treated mice after MHV-3 infection is due to the lower levels of Fgl2 and decreased fibrinogen deposition.
Indeed, it has been reported that Fgl2 is expressed on macrophages, and the expression of Fgl2 is believed to be induced by IFN-γ and TNF-α (22) . Cultured THP-1 cells activated by IFN-γ or IL-2 have been demonstrated, with induction of Fgl2 expression and enhanced activation of human prothrombin (23) . Therefore, in this study, we explored this cell line to investigate the modulation of CC10 on Fgl2. Surprisingly, we found that CC10 directly inhibited IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. As we know, IFN-γ has proved to be the main cytokine that leads to the development and progression of FH. Also, it was shown that IFN-γ might exert its own proinflammatory biological function through enhancing Fgl2 expression. Therefore, in our study, CC10 might counter the effect of IFN-γ in the setting of FH, which substantiates its role in FH. These results demonstrated that CC10 regulates the expression of Fgl2 in macrophages.
In the current study, we used co-immunoprecipitation to analyze binding between CC10 and Fgl2. In this study, we investigated possible protein-protein interactions between CC10 and Fgl2 in vitro. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2. Cellular proteins were immunoprecipitated with anti-CC10 antibody or anti-Fgl2 antibody. Immunoblotting was performed with anti-Fgl2 and anti-CC10 antibodies. Immunoprecipitation of protein extracts from pcDNA 3.1-CC10 and pcDNA3.1-Fgl2 co-transfected CHO cells with anti-Fgl2 or anti-CC10 antibody followed by western blotting with Fgl2 and CC10 antibodies indicated that CC10 did not co-immunoprecipitate with Fgl2, showing that there is no direct relationship between CC10 and Fgl2 (data not shown). The results showed that CC10 has no direct interaction with Fgl2. From our previous study the gene of fgl2 contributed profoundly in MHV-3 induced fulminant hepatitis and is extensively expressed in macrophages and endothelium (12, 33) . Our microarray indicated a CC10 down-regulated fgl2 expression and this is further confirmed by qPCR and Western blotting in vivo (peritoneal macrophages) and in vitro (THP-1, macrophage cell line). Therefore, it is reasonable to focus on macrophages to display the effect of CC10 on fgl2 expression and eventually mice survival. We entirely agree there may be other possibilities for a protective effect of CC10 to contribute to the disease process. This is worth further studies. The potential receptor of CC10 has not been revealed yet. Our previous study have demonstrated that CC10 have effect of dendritic cells in allergic rhinitis (34) . In this research, we evaluated the effect of CC10 on macrophages functions and found Fgl2 was substantially down-regulated upon CC10 treatment, therefore, we speculate that potential CC10 receptor may be also expressed on macrophages. The potential target of CC10 on other immune cells cannot be excluded.
DNA microarray analysis is one of the most powerful approaches for the potential identification of unexpected genes involved in pathogenic processes. By using this approach, HMGbox transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was found to be one of the most downregulated genes after CC10 treatment of THP-1 cells. HBP1 is a well-described transcriptional repressor that modulates expression of genes involved in cell cycle progression. In a recent study, it was found that HBP1 is a direct target of miR-21 and confirmed that HBP1 modulates the inhibitory function of miR-21-ASO in hepatosteatosis and carcinogenesis simultaneously (23) . HBP1 is an endogenous inhibitor of the Wnt signaling pathway in both normal and cancer cells. The tumor suppressor role of HBP1 has been reported in some malignancies, such as oral cancer and glioma (35) . However, an association between HBP1 and Fgl2 has not been investigated yet. The current study clearly demonstrated that CC10 protects against MHV-3 induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression. Such effects might be mediated by HBP1. However, the functional status of HBP1 in the CC10 pathway requires further research, and such studies are conducting in our laboratory.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that CC10 could limit the immunopathological damage in MHV-3-induced FH mice. Our results suggest that enhancing CC10 expression by an immunotherapeutic approach might be an effective treatment for FH.
HY performed all the described experiments and wrote the manuscript. YL assisted with some experiments, analyzed experimental results, and edited the manuscript. HW analyzed experimental results. XW reviewed and edited the manuscript. JH, WY, DX, XL, GS, and QN provided experimental help and design. | 1,631 | What is fulminant hepatitis? | {
"answer_start": [
2830
],
"text": [
"a serious life-threatening disease characterized by massive hepatocyte necrosis"
]
} | 5,295 |
542 | Clara Cell 10 kDa Protein Alleviates Murine Hepatitis Virus Strain 3-Induced Fulminant Hepatitis by Inhibiting Fibrinogen-Like Protein 2 Expression
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300492/
SHA: f0c2cd2793d71f1ea11a810442a2c06d5013e899
Authors: Yu, Haijing; Liu, Yang; Wang, Hongwu; Wan, Xiaoyang; Huang, Jiaquan; Yan, Weiming; Xi, Dong; Luo, Xiaoping; Shen, Guanxin; Ning, Qin
Date: 2018-12-13
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02935
License: cc-by
Abstract: Background: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious threat to human life, accompanied by massive and rapid necroinflammation. Kupffer cells, the major immune cell population involved in innate immune responses, are considered to be central for FH. Fibrinogen-like protein 2 (Fgl2) is a pro-coagulant protein that is substantially induced in macrophages upon viral infection, and Fgl2 depletion represses murine hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3) infection. Clara cell 10 kDa (CC10) protein is a secretory protein with anti-inflammatory properties in allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, its mechanisms of action and pathogenic roles in other disease are still unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the role of CC10 in FH and the regulation of Fgl2 by CC10. Methods: A mouse FH model was established by peritoneal injection of MHV-3. The mice received CC10 protein through tail vein injection before viral infection. Survival rate, liver function, liver histology, fibrin deposition, and necrosis were examined. The regulatory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression was investigated using THP-1 cells and mouse peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Results: In the mouse FH model induced by MHV-3, the survival rate increased from 0 to 12.5% in the CC10 group compared to that in the saline-only control group. Meanwhile, the levels of ALT and AST in serum were significantly decreased and liver damage was reduced. Furthermore, hepatic Fgl2, TNF-α, and IL-1β expression was obviously downregulated together with fibrin deposition, and hepatocyte apoptosis was reduced after administration of CC10 protein. In vitro, CC10 was found to significantly inhibit the expression of Fgl2 in IFN-γ-treated THP-1 cells and MHV-3-infected mouse peritoneal macrophages by western blot and real-time PCR. However, there was no direct interaction between CC10 and Fgl2 as shown by co-immunoprecipitation. Microarray investigations suggested that HMG-box transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was significantly low in CC10-treated and IFN-γ-primed THP-1 cells. HBP1-siRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial cells (HUVECs). Conclusion:CC10 protects against MHV-3-induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such effects may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
Text: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious life-threatening disease characterized by massive hepatocyte necrosis, severe liver damage, and high mortality. The underlying mechanisms and the pathogenesis of FH are not clear. However, accumulating evidence suggests that, regardless of the pathogenesis of FH, the host's inflammatory responses contribute to liver microcirculatory disorders and injuries. Accordingly, It has been shown that immune cell activation and inflammatory cytokines play an important role in FH (1) . In recent years, our laboratory has conducted extensive research on the pathogenesis of FH and found that immune cells play a key role in it. Kupffer cells, natural killer (NK) cells (2, 3) , cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), and double negative T-cells (DNT) (4) (5) (6) in liver and the cytokines that are produced by these cells cause liver damage.
Prothrombinase Fgl2 belongs to the fibrinogen superfamily and is produced by activated macrophages or endothelial cells, transforming prothrombin directly into thrombin, so as to quickly initiate the process of coagulation. This promotes the conversion of fibrinogen into fibrin, resulting in thrombosis (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) . Our study found that Fgl2 was highly expressed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and in liver tissue of humans or mice with severe viral hepatitis, and was positively related to the severity of the disease (13, 14) . Gene therapy targeting Fgl2 silencing showed that the survival rate of fulminant hepatitis mice increased from 0 to 33.3% (15) . Thus far, the discovery and related research involving Fgl2 have provided new insights into the molecular mechanism of hepatocyte necrosis in FH. In view of the important role of Fgl2 in severe viral hepatitis, investigations concerning the regulation of Fgl2 will be beneficial in the search for new strategies for treatment of severe hepatitis.
Clara cell 10 kDa protein (CC10), also considered to be uteroglobin, Clara cell secretory protein, is one of members of secretoglobin superfamily. Expressed in mucosal epithelial cells of organs (including lungs and nose) that communicated with the outside world (16) . CC10 has immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. Compared to wild-type mice, CC10-knockout mice exhibited excessive airway inflammation Abbreviations: FH, fulminant hepatitis; MHV-3, murine hepatitis virus strain 3; Fgl2, Fibrinogen-like protein 2; CC10, Clara cell 10 KDa protein; ALF, acute liver failure; PFU, plaque-forming units; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; PCA, pro-coagulant activity; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling. caused by allergic reaction and bacterial and viral infections (17) . Reduced levels of CC10 are associated with inflammatory and allergic airway diseases, including sinusitis, asthma and allergic rhinitis (18) (19) (20) (21) .
Previous studies and published articles show that CC10 protein can not only inhibit Th17 cell responses by inhibiting expression of related molecules of dendritic cells and cytokines in mice with allergic rhinitis, but also can inhibit chitosan-3 like protein 1 (22, 23) . Moreover, CC10 inhibits the expression of an important immune regulator, osteopontin (OPN), in models of allergic rhinitis (21) .
In this study, we investigated the role of CC10 in hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3)-induced FH in mice and explored whether CC10 protein could regulate Fgl2 in the disease process.
Female BALB/cJ mice (Shanghai Shilaike Animal Seed Center, Shanghai, China), 6-8 weeks of age, with a body weight of 18.0-20.0 g, were kept in Tongji Hospital with food and water. Mice were divided into two groups: CC10 group (experimental group) and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) group (control group). This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital. This study was reviewed and approved by the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital.
The human monocyte cell line THP-1 was purchased from the Cell Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were obtained from the Biology Treasure Center of Wuhan University, China. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line was acquired from the typical culture preservation commission cell bank, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) and CHO cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM), and THP-1 cells were maintained in RPMI 1,640 containing 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco Life Technologies, USA), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 mg/mL streptomycin and cultured at 37 • C, 50 mL/L CO 2 and 95% humidity.
Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were obtained from BALB/cJ mice. Cells were resuspended in RPMI 1,640 supplemented with 10% FBS at 1-2 × 10 6 cells/mL in a 6-well plate and incubated for 4 h. They were then washed with RPMI 1640 medium and non-adherent cells discarded. The adherent cells were macrophages and were incubated for a further 12 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were divided into two groups. One group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/mL) and in the other group, PBS was added. After 2 h of stimulation, 1,000 plaque forming units (PFUs) of MHV-3 was added to the cells, which were then cultured for 4 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were harvested and lysed for real-time PCR and western blotting analysis.
Cell apoptosis was detected by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) method with a TUNEL apoptosis detection kit (Roche, Switzerland). Briefly, 5 µm sections were deparaffinized, dehydrated through an alcohol series and incubated with proteinase K for 30 min at 37 • C. After stopping the proteinase K digestion reaction with PBS, the samples were incubated with terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase end-labeling cocktail (a mixture of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and dUTP at a ratio of 2:29, respectively), for 2 h at 37 • C in an immunohistochemistry wet box. Following washing and blocking, each section was supplemented with reagent (converter-POD) to cover the tissues and incubated for 30 min at 37 • C in a wet box. Then, the liver tissue sections were washed with PBS, and colored with diaminobenzidine (DAB) subsequently. Hepatocytes with nucleus stained brownish yellow were considered to be apoptotic cells.
The expression of Fgl2 on THP-1 cells was measured by flow cytometry (BD FACS Canto II, USA). Briefly, cells (2 × 10 5 per tube) were incubated with Human TruStrain FcX (Fc Receptor Blocking solution, BioLegend, USA) for 10 min at room temperature and then incubated in the dark with mouse anti-Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Abnova,) or normal goat serum (an isotype control) at 4 • C for 40 min. Cells were washed with PBS and incubated in the dark with PE-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody (1:50, BioLegend, USA) at 4 • C for 30 min. Cells were then washed with PBS and resuspended in 300 µL PBS for study.
Liver slices were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and then embedded in paraffin. Immunohistochemistry of liver tissues was performed using SP-9001 SPlink Detection Kits (Biotin-Streptavidin HRP Detection Systems) (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For immunohistochemistry staining, the expression of Fgl2, fibrinogen, Fas and TNF-receptor 1 in mouse liver tissues was detected with polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Proteintech, USA), polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse fibrinogen antibody (1:1,000, Abcam, EngLand), polyclonal rabbit antimouse Fas antibody (1:50, Abcam, EngLand), and polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse TNF-receptor 1 antibody (1:500, Abcam, EngLand), respectively. After incubation with an horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled goat IgG fraction to rabbit IgG Fc, the target protein was detected using a DAB kit (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China). The slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin and visualized under a microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).
Liver tissue and cells were homogenized in RIPA lysis buffer with phenyl methane sulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) protease inhibitor. Protein lysates were separated by SDS-PAGE, and western blotting was performed using a monoclonal mouse antihuman/mouse Fgl2 (1:750, Abnova), a monoclonal mouse antihuman HBP1 (1:100, Santa Cruz, USA), and a monoclonal rabbit anti-human/mouse β-actin (1:1,000, Cell Signaling Technology, USA).
Liver tissues were collected from MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice at 72 h, and total RNA was extracted using Trizol Reagent (Invitrogen, USA) and then reverse transcribed into cDNA by using ReverTra Ace qPCR RT kit (TOYOBO, Japan). The cDNA was then amplified by RT-PCR by using Dream Taq Green PCR Master Mix (2 ×) (Thermo Scientific, USA). Realtime quantitative PCR (qPCR) with SYBR Green Real-time PCR Master Mix (TOYOBO, Japan) was performed using a CFX96 real-time PCR detection system (Bio-Rad, USA) and mRNA levels were normalized with reference to those of the house keeping gene GAPDH. Primer sequences for qPCR amplification were as follows: mTNF-α forward, 5 ′ -TTT GAG ATC CAT GCC GTT GG-3 ′ ; mTNF-α reverse, 5 ′ -GCCA CCA CGC TCT TCT GT-3 ′ ; mIL-1β forward, 5 ′ -TGT AAT GAA AGA CGG CAC ACC-3 ′ ; mIL-1β reverse, 5 ′ -TCT TCT TTG GGT ATT GCT TGG-3 ′ . mFgl2 forward, 5 ′ -GCC AAA TGT GAG TCC CTG GAA-3 ′ ; mFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -TTC CAC CCA AGA GCA CGT TTA AG-3 ′ ; hFgl2 forward 5 ′ -ACA GTT CAG GCT GGT GGT-3 ′ ; hFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -GGC TTA AAG TGC TTG GGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 forward, 5 ′ -TGA AGC AGA AGC TGG GAGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 reverse,
THP-1 cells were treated with 100 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) (Sigma, USA) for 48 h to induce differentiation toward adherent macrophage-like cells as reported previously (24) . The CC10 group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml). After 2 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/ml) was added to these cells, which were then cultured for 12 h before they were collected for western blotting and real-time PCR studies.
The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were cultured in 10 cm cell culture dishes with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 80-90% confluence. Next, 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 (constructed in our lab) was mixed with 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hCC10 in serumfree DMEM. The mixture was then combined with Lipofectamine 2,000 (Invitrogen, USA) and mixed gently. After incubation at 27 • C for 20 min, the solution was added to CHO cells and incubated at 37 • C in 5% CO 2 . Four to Six hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, the cells were collected for co-immunoprecipitation analysis to evaluate the interaction of CC10 with Fgl2.
Both HUVEC and THP-1 cells express fgl2. However, in the transfection experiments, it is difficult to transfect the THP-1 cells with siRNA, so we use HUVEC instead of THP-1. Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were cultured in FIGURE 1 | CC10 protein increased survival rate and reduced liver damage in mice. (A) The survival rate of CC10 group is higher than the control group comprised of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice treated with saline. CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein. BALB/cJ mice then received 100 PFU of MHV-3 intraperitoneally 24 h later to develop fulminant viral hepatitis. Then, CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein following MHV-3 infection 24 h later. The survival rate was observed for 10 days (n = 24/group). Representative data from three independent experiments are shown. The survival curve was analyzed by using the Log-Rank Test. ***P < 0.001 compared with saline group. (B) Histopathology of liver tissues (H&E staining; original magnification, ×400, n = 5/group) at 72 h post-MHV-3 infection was evaluated in the two groups of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice. Livers were collected from saline-treated (a) and CC10-treated (b) BALB/cJ mice at 72 h after MHV-3 infection. Arrows point to inflammatory cell infiltration areas or necrotic regions with inflammation. (C) Effect of CC10 on serum ALT and AST levels (n = 6-8/group). Values represent means and standard error of three independent experiments performed in triplicate. **P < 0.01 compared with the saline group.
six-well plates with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 70-80% confluence. 50 pmol HBP1-siRNA was mixed with 125 µl serum-free DMEM. Two microliter Lipofectamine 2,000 was gently mixed with serum-free DMEM. After incubation at 27 • C for 5 min, the solution was added to HUVECs and incubated at 37 • C. Four hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, cells were collected for real-time PCR and western blot analysis to evaluate the effects of HBP1 on Fgl2. At 24 h after transfection, the CC10 group was supplemented with the CC10 protein (150 ng/mL). After 4 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/mL) was added to these cells. These cells were then cultured for 24 h before they were harvested for real-time PCR studies to evaluate the effects of CC10 on Fgl2 by HBP1. Negative control was used as a control.
To detect whether there was a potential interaction between CC10 protein and Fgl2, CHO cells were transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 for 48 h. Cells transfected with empty plasmid pcDNA3.1 (mock) were used as negative controls for CC10 gene transfection. Immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting were performed by using Pierce Co-Immunoprecipitation Kit (Pierce, USA). Total cell proteins were extracted as previously described (25) . The proteins were immunoprecipitated by mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). For co-immunoprecipitation experiments, western blotting was performed using both rat anti-human uteroglobin/SCGB1A1 Antibody (1:750, R&D, USA) Frontiers in Immunology | www.frontiersin.org and mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). Control isotype rat IgG1 was used as a negative control for primary antibodies.
The human CC10 coding region gene, including a 389 bp sequence, was amplified from homogenized human turbinate tissue by RT-PCR. In this study, the sequences of PCR primers for CC10 were as follows: hCC10-forward, 5 ′ -CCC TCC ACC ATG AAA CTCG-3 ′ ; hCC10-reverse, 5 ′ -TGA GAT GCT TGT GGT TTA TTG AAG-3 ′ . The PCR products were cloned into pEASY-T1 cloning vector (TransGEN, Beijing, China) and then subcloned into HindIII/XbaI site of pcDNA3.1 vector (Invitrogen, USA) to form eukaryotic expression plasmids pcDNA3.1-hCC10.
Microarray analysis was used to screen changes in genome-wide gene expression patterns in THP-1 cells with or without CC10 protein. The changes in over 47,000 human gene expression patterns were assessed using Affymetrix gene microarrays (Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0) (CapitalBio Co.,Ltd., Beijing, China). Three replicates were used for microarrays analysis.
Data obtained from the experiments are expressed as means ± SEM. Survival curve comparisons were performed with the Log Rank test. Multiple group analyses for data were evaluated by one-way analyses of variance. Analyses of two group results were performed using Student's t-test to evaluate the statistical significance of differences. Values of P < 0.05 indicated significance.
To establish an animal model of mouse FH, MHV-3 was injected intraperitoneally to BALB/cJ mice (24 mice/group). To further study the role of CC10 in FH, recombinant mouse CC10 protein (2 µg/mouse) or saline was administrated into the tail vein 24 h prior to MHV-3 infection. The same dose of CC10 protein or saline was then administered 24 h later. The survival rate of the CC10 and saline groups was observed for 10 days. The results showed that mice in the two groups began to die at 48 h after injection of MHV-3 and exhibited symptoms of horripilation, slow activity, and reduced food consumption. In the CC10 group 24 mice were alive on day 3 after infection, 4 mice alive on day 4, and 3 of 24 (12.5%) mice recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis. At the same time, in saline treated group, there were 5 mice alive on day 3, 1 mice alive on day 4 after infection, and no mice survived to day 5. That is to say, the mice in the saline group died within 3 or 4 days. Three of 24 (12.5%) mice of the CC10 group recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis ( Figure 1A) .
To better understand the mechanisms underlying the biological effects of the CC10 protein, liver function (ALT and AST levels in serum) and liver histology in mice of MHV-3-infected was performed. Liver tissues were harvested 72 h following MHV-3 infection, and liver histology was detected by H&E staining. These results showed that there was substantial inflammatory cell infiltration and widespread necrosis of hepatocytes in the liver tissue of the saline group mice (Figure 1Ba ). There were rare or no infiltrating inflammatory cells, and few or no hepatocyte necrosis in the livers of mice in the CC10 group 72 h after MHV-3 infection (Figure 1Bb) . Serum ALT and AST levels in mice were observed 72 h after MHV-3 infection. The results showed that serum ALT and AST levels in the saline group reached a peak 72 h after MHV-3 infection, but there was no significant increase in the CC10 group compared to the levels in the control group (P < 0.01, Figure 1C) . These results suggested that CC10 protein has a role in protection against MHV-3-induced liver injury in mice.
To further elucidate the mechanisms of reduced liver injury following CC10 protein injection, we investigated the cytokines TNF-α and IL-1β expression. Because these two cytokines play a crucial role in the liver damage of FH. They are characterized by an increase in apoptosis. Levels of TNF-α and IL-1β in liver tissues were markedly reduced in the CC10 group (as shown in Figure 2A) . Hepatic apoptosis (Figure 2B ) was significantly reduced in the CC10 group.
We and collaborators have a long standing interest in studying the role of fgl2 in viral hepatitis. Fgl2 has been verified to play an essential role in the progression of fulminant viral hepatitis as we appreciate from previous reports. We have provided liver pathology figures and liver function for MHV-3 infected mice with a fgl2 gene knockout as shown in Supplementary Figure 1 .
The data was comparable with previous reports from our center and collaborators. From this current study we shown that CC10 plays a protective role in liver damage.To study the related molecules of CC10 in MHV-3-induced FH mice, we evaluated whether there was crosstalk between Fgl2 and CC10. We found that the expression of Fgl2 in the liver of mice was reduced 72 h after MHV-3 infection and treatment with CC10 protein (Figures 3A,B) . Furthermore, fibrin deposition, an indicator of liver injury associated with Fgl2 expression in FH, was also decreased in the livers of CC10-treated mice compared to that in controls (Figure 3C ). This indicates that CC10 treatment reduced liver injury after viral infection by inhibiting Fgl2 expression.
We examined the effect of increasing doses of CC10 protein (0, 50, 150, and 300 ng/mL) on IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. CC10 treatment showed a 10.1% decrease in THP-1 cells compared to that in control after stimulation with 10 ng/mL IFN-γ for 12 h. CC10 protein inhibited Fgl2 expression between doses of 0 ng/mL and 300 ng/mL (Figure 4A ). In particular, 150 ng/mL CC10 protein had the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression among the doses, and we chose this dose for the following experiments. We explored the effect of different time points of stimulation with a concentration of 150 ng/mL CC10 protein. After stimulation with CC10 protein for 6, 12, and 24 h compared to the PBS control, the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression was noted at 12 h; hence, we chose this time point for the following studies ( Figure 4B ). An increasing number of studies suggest that macrophages are the primary source of Fgl2. In order to ascertain that CC10 has a direct effect on macrophages, we treated THP-1 cells with recombinant CC10 and assessed the expression of Fgl2. Unlike in controls, IFN-γ induced a significant increase in Fgl2 expression. This effect was attenuated when cells were treated with CC10 protein (Figures 4C,D) , revealing that CC10 directly reduces the levels of Fgl2 in macrophages. To further explore the possibility that CC10 protein directly acts on macrophages, we infected murine PEMs with MHV-3 in the presence of recombinant CC10 and determined Fgl2 expression. Compared to levels in the controls, MHV-3infected macrophages exhibited a significant increase in Fgl2 production, and this effect was abolished by using CC10 protein (Figures 5A,B) , indicating that CC10 directly modulates Fgl2 production in macrophages.
In order to determine genes that were downregulated after stimulation by CC10 protein, we used DNA microarray analysis to screen for differentially expressed genes. THP-1 cells were cultured and PMA was added to induce differentiation into macrophages. The production of Fgl2 was stimulated by IFNγ. The experimental group was treated with CC10 protein for microarray detection of differentially expressed genes. The results showed that the most obviously downregulated genes were UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, SOX4, HBP1, and Fgl2 (Supplementary Table 1) . And then these genes were tested by qPCR. However, UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, and SOX4 was not differentially expressed by qPCR, while HBP1 and fgl2 were still down-regulated genes. DNA microarray analysis identified HBP1 as a down-regulated gene involved in the pathological processes of the regulation of CC10.
Recently, very limited studies have explored the role of HBP1 in FH. Nevertheless, the mechanistic functions of HBP1 in FH remain largely unexplored. Therefore, we selected this gene for further study. qPCR analysis confirmed that mRNA levels of HBP1 were significantly decreased in THP-1 cells after CC10
protein stimulation compared to that in the PBS control group (Figure 6A ).
We knocked down HBP1 using HBP1-siRNA. Then, transfection of HBP1-SiRNA into HUVECs was detected by qPCR and western-blotting methods. As expected, HBP1 knockdown led to significantly decreased expression of HBP1 (Figures 6B,C) . Furthermore, HBP1 knockdown impaired expression of Fgl2 (Figure 6D ), suggesting that HBP1 was able to activate Fgl2.
HBP1-SiRNA was used to transfect HUVECs. Then, IFN-γ was added to induce the expression of Fgl2 followed by stimulation with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml) after 2 h. Finally, we explored the expression of Fgl2 by qPCR. The results showed that HBP1-SiRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in HUVECs (Figure 7) . That is to say, CC10 could suppress Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such an effect may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
It is well-known that CC10 protein can suppress the immune response. In animal models of allergic diseases of the respiratory tract, most of evidences confirm this inhibition (26) . Its function in FH has not been investigated yet. Here, we used a murine FH model established by MHV-3 infection to explore the effects of CC10 in this disease process. To determine the role of CC10 in the pathogenesis of FH, CC10 protein was injected into a mouse FH model established by MHV-3 infection. MHV-3-induced liver injury in CC10-treated mice occurred rarely and the areas of lesions were much fewer than those in saline-treated control mice. In summary, these results suggested that CC10 could reduce pathological liver damage in this FH model together with lower mortality rates followed by MHV-3 infection.
MHV-3 induced fulminant viral hepatitis progresses rapidly and infected mice die within 3-5 days. Previous studies suggested fgl2 played a vital role in this process with a 15-40% increase of survival when fgl2 was deleted (12, 15, 27, 28) . Multiple inflammatory factors or mediators including TNF-α and IFN-γ, IL-1β and C5aR have been demonstrated to promote FH progression with significant discrepancies between liver damage and survival rate (29) (30) (31) (32) , which is accordant with our observation that CC10 substantially alleviated liver injury though survival rate improved mildly. The survival rate based on hours may be more accurate to examine the effect of CC10 on FH.
It is speculated that fgl2 can mediate lethality in MHV-3-induced FH. This is due to the fact that fgl2 induces the deposition of fibrinogen, which leads to activation of the coagulation cascade and induction of procoagulant activity (15) . To determine whether the tissue necrosis was mediated by Fgl2 in CC10-treated mice following infection, Fgl2 expression was observed. Results suggested that the expression of Fgl2 was significantly increased in MHV-3-induced FH mice and CC10 treatment significantly reduced the production of Fgl2 in the infected liver and serum. In addition, decreased fibrinogen deposition was also observed in the livers of CC10-treated mice. Therefore, our research results strongly clarify that the lower mortality of CC10-treated mice after MHV-3 infection is due to the lower levels of Fgl2 and decreased fibrinogen deposition.
Indeed, it has been reported that Fgl2 is expressed on macrophages, and the expression of Fgl2 is believed to be induced by IFN-γ and TNF-α (22) . Cultured THP-1 cells activated by IFN-γ or IL-2 have been demonstrated, with induction of Fgl2 expression and enhanced activation of human prothrombin (23) . Therefore, in this study, we explored this cell line to investigate the modulation of CC10 on Fgl2. Surprisingly, we found that CC10 directly inhibited IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. As we know, IFN-γ has proved to be the main cytokine that leads to the development and progression of FH. Also, it was shown that IFN-γ might exert its own proinflammatory biological function through enhancing Fgl2 expression. Therefore, in our study, CC10 might counter the effect of IFN-γ in the setting of FH, which substantiates its role in FH. These results demonstrated that CC10 regulates the expression of Fgl2 in macrophages.
In the current study, we used co-immunoprecipitation to analyze binding between CC10 and Fgl2. In this study, we investigated possible protein-protein interactions between CC10 and Fgl2 in vitro. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2. Cellular proteins were immunoprecipitated with anti-CC10 antibody or anti-Fgl2 antibody. Immunoblotting was performed with anti-Fgl2 and anti-CC10 antibodies. Immunoprecipitation of protein extracts from pcDNA 3.1-CC10 and pcDNA3.1-Fgl2 co-transfected CHO cells with anti-Fgl2 or anti-CC10 antibody followed by western blotting with Fgl2 and CC10 antibodies indicated that CC10 did not co-immunoprecipitate with Fgl2, showing that there is no direct relationship between CC10 and Fgl2 (data not shown). The results showed that CC10 has no direct interaction with Fgl2. From our previous study the gene of fgl2 contributed profoundly in MHV-3 induced fulminant hepatitis and is extensively expressed in macrophages and endothelium (12, 33) . Our microarray indicated a CC10 down-regulated fgl2 expression and this is further confirmed by qPCR and Western blotting in vivo (peritoneal macrophages) and in vitro (THP-1, macrophage cell line). Therefore, it is reasonable to focus on macrophages to display the effect of CC10 on fgl2 expression and eventually mice survival. We entirely agree there may be other possibilities for a protective effect of CC10 to contribute to the disease process. This is worth further studies. The potential receptor of CC10 has not been revealed yet. Our previous study have demonstrated that CC10 have effect of dendritic cells in allergic rhinitis (34) . In this research, we evaluated the effect of CC10 on macrophages functions and found Fgl2 was substantially down-regulated upon CC10 treatment, therefore, we speculate that potential CC10 receptor may be also expressed on macrophages. The potential target of CC10 on other immune cells cannot be excluded.
DNA microarray analysis is one of the most powerful approaches for the potential identification of unexpected genes involved in pathogenic processes. By using this approach, HMGbox transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was found to be one of the most downregulated genes after CC10 treatment of THP-1 cells. HBP1 is a well-described transcriptional repressor that modulates expression of genes involved in cell cycle progression. In a recent study, it was found that HBP1 is a direct target of miR-21 and confirmed that HBP1 modulates the inhibitory function of miR-21-ASO in hepatosteatosis and carcinogenesis simultaneously (23) . HBP1 is an endogenous inhibitor of the Wnt signaling pathway in both normal and cancer cells. The tumor suppressor role of HBP1 has been reported in some malignancies, such as oral cancer and glioma (35) . However, an association between HBP1 and Fgl2 has not been investigated yet. The current study clearly demonstrated that CC10 protects against MHV-3 induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression. Such effects might be mediated by HBP1. However, the functional status of HBP1 in the CC10 pathway requires further research, and such studies are conducting in our laboratory.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that CC10 could limit the immunopathological damage in MHV-3-induced FH mice. Our results suggest that enhancing CC10 expression by an immunotherapeutic approach might be an effective treatment for FH.
HY performed all the described experiments and wrote the manuscript. YL assisted with some experiments, analyzed experimental results, and edited the manuscript. HW analyzed experimental results. XW reviewed and edited the manuscript. JH, WY, DX, XL, GS, and QN provided experimental help and design. | 1,631 | How does Prothrombinase Fgl2 affect the coagulation process? | {
"answer_start": [
3792
],
"text": [
"transforming prothrombin directly into thrombin,"
]
} | 5,296 |
543 | Clara Cell 10 kDa Protein Alleviates Murine Hepatitis Virus Strain 3-Induced Fulminant Hepatitis by Inhibiting Fibrinogen-Like Protein 2 Expression
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300492/
SHA: f0c2cd2793d71f1ea11a810442a2c06d5013e899
Authors: Yu, Haijing; Liu, Yang; Wang, Hongwu; Wan, Xiaoyang; Huang, Jiaquan; Yan, Weiming; Xi, Dong; Luo, Xiaoping; Shen, Guanxin; Ning, Qin
Date: 2018-12-13
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02935
License: cc-by
Abstract: Background: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious threat to human life, accompanied by massive and rapid necroinflammation. Kupffer cells, the major immune cell population involved in innate immune responses, are considered to be central for FH. Fibrinogen-like protein 2 (Fgl2) is a pro-coagulant protein that is substantially induced in macrophages upon viral infection, and Fgl2 depletion represses murine hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3) infection. Clara cell 10 kDa (CC10) protein is a secretory protein with anti-inflammatory properties in allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, its mechanisms of action and pathogenic roles in other disease are still unclear. In this study, we aimed to determine the role of CC10 in FH and the regulation of Fgl2 by CC10. Methods: A mouse FH model was established by peritoneal injection of MHV-3. The mice received CC10 protein through tail vein injection before viral infection. Survival rate, liver function, liver histology, fibrin deposition, and necrosis were examined. The regulatory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression was investigated using THP-1 cells and mouse peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Results: In the mouse FH model induced by MHV-3, the survival rate increased from 0 to 12.5% in the CC10 group compared to that in the saline-only control group. Meanwhile, the levels of ALT and AST in serum were significantly decreased and liver damage was reduced. Furthermore, hepatic Fgl2, TNF-α, and IL-1β expression was obviously downregulated together with fibrin deposition, and hepatocyte apoptosis was reduced after administration of CC10 protein. In vitro, CC10 was found to significantly inhibit the expression of Fgl2 in IFN-γ-treated THP-1 cells and MHV-3-infected mouse peritoneal macrophages by western blot and real-time PCR. However, there was no direct interaction between CC10 and Fgl2 as shown by co-immunoprecipitation. Microarray investigations suggested that HMG-box transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was significantly low in CC10-treated and IFN-γ-primed THP-1 cells. HBP1-siRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial cells (HUVECs). Conclusion:CC10 protects against MHV-3-induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such effects may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
Text: Fulminant hepatitis (FH) is a serious life-threatening disease characterized by massive hepatocyte necrosis, severe liver damage, and high mortality. The underlying mechanisms and the pathogenesis of FH are not clear. However, accumulating evidence suggests that, regardless of the pathogenesis of FH, the host's inflammatory responses contribute to liver microcirculatory disorders and injuries. Accordingly, It has been shown that immune cell activation and inflammatory cytokines play an important role in FH (1) . In recent years, our laboratory has conducted extensive research on the pathogenesis of FH and found that immune cells play a key role in it. Kupffer cells, natural killer (NK) cells (2, 3) , cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), and double negative T-cells (DNT) (4) (5) (6) in liver and the cytokines that are produced by these cells cause liver damage.
Prothrombinase Fgl2 belongs to the fibrinogen superfamily and is produced by activated macrophages or endothelial cells, transforming prothrombin directly into thrombin, so as to quickly initiate the process of coagulation. This promotes the conversion of fibrinogen into fibrin, resulting in thrombosis (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) . Our study found that Fgl2 was highly expressed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and in liver tissue of humans or mice with severe viral hepatitis, and was positively related to the severity of the disease (13, 14) . Gene therapy targeting Fgl2 silencing showed that the survival rate of fulminant hepatitis mice increased from 0 to 33.3% (15) . Thus far, the discovery and related research involving Fgl2 have provided new insights into the molecular mechanism of hepatocyte necrosis in FH. In view of the important role of Fgl2 in severe viral hepatitis, investigations concerning the regulation of Fgl2 will be beneficial in the search for new strategies for treatment of severe hepatitis.
Clara cell 10 kDa protein (CC10), also considered to be uteroglobin, Clara cell secretory protein, is one of members of secretoglobin superfamily. Expressed in mucosal epithelial cells of organs (including lungs and nose) that communicated with the outside world (16) . CC10 has immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. Compared to wild-type mice, CC10-knockout mice exhibited excessive airway inflammation Abbreviations: FH, fulminant hepatitis; MHV-3, murine hepatitis virus strain 3; Fgl2, Fibrinogen-like protein 2; CC10, Clara cell 10 KDa protein; ALF, acute liver failure; PFU, plaque-forming units; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; PCA, pro-coagulant activity; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; TUNEL, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling. caused by allergic reaction and bacterial and viral infections (17) . Reduced levels of CC10 are associated with inflammatory and allergic airway diseases, including sinusitis, asthma and allergic rhinitis (18) (19) (20) (21) .
Previous studies and published articles show that CC10 protein can not only inhibit Th17 cell responses by inhibiting expression of related molecules of dendritic cells and cytokines in mice with allergic rhinitis, but also can inhibit chitosan-3 like protein 1 (22, 23) . Moreover, CC10 inhibits the expression of an important immune regulator, osteopontin (OPN), in models of allergic rhinitis (21) .
In this study, we investigated the role of CC10 in hepatitis virus strain 3 (MHV-3)-induced FH in mice and explored whether CC10 protein could regulate Fgl2 in the disease process.
Female BALB/cJ mice (Shanghai Shilaike Animal Seed Center, Shanghai, China), 6-8 weeks of age, with a body weight of 18.0-20.0 g, were kept in Tongji Hospital with food and water. Mice were divided into two groups: CC10 group (experimental group) and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) group (control group). This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital. This study was reviewed and approved by the Animal Experiment Committee of Tongji hospital.
The human monocyte cell line THP-1 was purchased from the Cell Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were obtained from the Biology Treasure Center of Wuhan University, China. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line was acquired from the typical culture preservation commission cell bank, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) and CHO cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM), and THP-1 cells were maintained in RPMI 1,640 containing 10% heat inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco Life Technologies, USA), 100 U/mL penicillin, and 100 mg/mL streptomycin and cultured at 37 • C, 50 mL/L CO 2 and 95% humidity.
Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were obtained from BALB/cJ mice. Cells were resuspended in RPMI 1,640 supplemented with 10% FBS at 1-2 × 10 6 cells/mL in a 6-well plate and incubated for 4 h. They were then washed with RPMI 1640 medium and non-adherent cells discarded. The adherent cells were macrophages and were incubated for a further 12 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were divided into two groups. One group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/mL) and in the other group, PBS was added. After 2 h of stimulation, 1,000 plaque forming units (PFUs) of MHV-3 was added to the cells, which were then cultured for 4 h. Peritoneal exudative macrophages (PEMs) were harvested and lysed for real-time PCR and western blotting analysis.
Cell apoptosis was detected by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) method with a TUNEL apoptosis detection kit (Roche, Switzerland). Briefly, 5 µm sections were deparaffinized, dehydrated through an alcohol series and incubated with proteinase K for 30 min at 37 • C. After stopping the proteinase K digestion reaction with PBS, the samples were incubated with terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase end-labeling cocktail (a mixture of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and dUTP at a ratio of 2:29, respectively), for 2 h at 37 • C in an immunohistochemistry wet box. Following washing and blocking, each section was supplemented with reagent (converter-POD) to cover the tissues and incubated for 30 min at 37 • C in a wet box. Then, the liver tissue sections were washed with PBS, and colored with diaminobenzidine (DAB) subsequently. Hepatocytes with nucleus stained brownish yellow were considered to be apoptotic cells.
The expression of Fgl2 on THP-1 cells was measured by flow cytometry (BD FACS Canto II, USA). Briefly, cells (2 × 10 5 per tube) were incubated with Human TruStrain FcX (Fc Receptor Blocking solution, BioLegend, USA) for 10 min at room temperature and then incubated in the dark with mouse anti-Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Abnova,) or normal goat serum (an isotype control) at 4 • C for 40 min. Cells were washed with PBS and incubated in the dark with PE-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibody (1:50, BioLegend, USA) at 4 • C for 30 min. Cells were then washed with PBS and resuspended in 300 µL PBS for study.
Liver slices were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde and then embedded in paraffin. Immunohistochemistry of liver tissues was performed using SP-9001 SPlink Detection Kits (Biotin-Streptavidin HRP Detection Systems) (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. For immunohistochemistry staining, the expression of Fgl2, fibrinogen, Fas and TNF-receptor 1 in mouse liver tissues was detected with polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse Fgl2 antibody (1:100, Proteintech, USA), polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse fibrinogen antibody (1:1,000, Abcam, EngLand), polyclonal rabbit antimouse Fas antibody (1:50, Abcam, EngLand), and polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse TNF-receptor 1 antibody (1:500, Abcam, EngLand), respectively. After incubation with an horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-labeled goat IgG fraction to rabbit IgG Fc, the target protein was detected using a DAB kit (ZSGB-BIO, Beijing, China). The slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin and visualized under a microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).
Liver tissue and cells were homogenized in RIPA lysis buffer with phenyl methane sulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) protease inhibitor. Protein lysates were separated by SDS-PAGE, and western blotting was performed using a monoclonal mouse antihuman/mouse Fgl2 (1:750, Abnova), a monoclonal mouse antihuman HBP1 (1:100, Santa Cruz, USA), and a monoclonal rabbit anti-human/mouse β-actin (1:1,000, Cell Signaling Technology, USA).
Liver tissues were collected from MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice at 72 h, and total RNA was extracted using Trizol Reagent (Invitrogen, USA) and then reverse transcribed into cDNA by using ReverTra Ace qPCR RT kit (TOYOBO, Japan). The cDNA was then amplified by RT-PCR by using Dream Taq Green PCR Master Mix (2 ×) (Thermo Scientific, USA). Realtime quantitative PCR (qPCR) with SYBR Green Real-time PCR Master Mix (TOYOBO, Japan) was performed using a CFX96 real-time PCR detection system (Bio-Rad, USA) and mRNA levels were normalized with reference to those of the house keeping gene GAPDH. Primer sequences for qPCR amplification were as follows: mTNF-α forward, 5 ′ -TTT GAG ATC CAT GCC GTT GG-3 ′ ; mTNF-α reverse, 5 ′ -GCCA CCA CGC TCT TCT GT-3 ′ ; mIL-1β forward, 5 ′ -TGT AAT GAA AGA CGG CAC ACC-3 ′ ; mIL-1β reverse, 5 ′ -TCT TCT TTG GGT ATT GCT TGG-3 ′ . mFgl2 forward, 5 ′ -GCC AAA TGT GAG TCC CTG GAA-3 ′ ; mFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -TTC CAC CCA AGA GCA CGT TTA AG-3 ′ ; hFgl2 forward 5 ′ -ACA GTT CAG GCT GGT GGT-3 ′ ; hFgl2 reverse, 5 ′ -GGC TTA AAG TGC TTG GGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 forward, 5 ′ -TGA AGC AGA AGC TGG GAGT-3 ′ ; HBP1 reverse,
THP-1 cells were treated with 100 ng/ml phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) (Sigma, USA) for 48 h to induce differentiation toward adherent macrophage-like cells as reported previously (24) . The CC10 group was supplemented with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml). After 2 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/ml) was added to these cells, which were then cultured for 12 h before they were collected for western blotting and real-time PCR studies.
The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were cultured in 10 cm cell culture dishes with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 80-90% confluence. Next, 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 (constructed in our lab) was mixed with 12 µg pcDNA3.1-hCC10 in serumfree DMEM. The mixture was then combined with Lipofectamine 2,000 (Invitrogen, USA) and mixed gently. After incubation at 27 • C for 20 min, the solution was added to CHO cells and incubated at 37 • C in 5% CO 2 . Four to Six hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, the cells were collected for co-immunoprecipitation analysis to evaluate the interaction of CC10 with Fgl2.
Both HUVEC and THP-1 cells express fgl2. However, in the transfection experiments, it is difficult to transfect the THP-1 cells with siRNA, so we use HUVEC instead of THP-1. Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were cultured in FIGURE 1 | CC10 protein increased survival rate and reduced liver damage in mice. (A) The survival rate of CC10 group is higher than the control group comprised of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice treated with saline. CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein. BALB/cJ mice then received 100 PFU of MHV-3 intraperitoneally 24 h later to develop fulminant viral hepatitis. Then, CC10 protein (2 µg) or saline were injected into mice by tail vein following MHV-3 infection 24 h later. The survival rate was observed for 10 days (n = 24/group). Representative data from three independent experiments are shown. The survival curve was analyzed by using the Log-Rank Test. ***P < 0.001 compared with saline group. (B) Histopathology of liver tissues (H&E staining; original magnification, ×400, n = 5/group) at 72 h post-MHV-3 infection was evaluated in the two groups of MHV-3-infected BALB/cJ mice. Livers were collected from saline-treated (a) and CC10-treated (b) BALB/cJ mice at 72 h after MHV-3 infection. Arrows point to inflammatory cell infiltration areas or necrotic regions with inflammation. (C) Effect of CC10 on serum ALT and AST levels (n = 6-8/group). Values represent means and standard error of three independent experiments performed in triplicate. **P < 0.01 compared with the saline group.
six-well plates with DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS until 70-80% confluence. 50 pmol HBP1-siRNA was mixed with 125 µl serum-free DMEM. Two microliter Lipofectamine 2,000 was gently mixed with serum-free DMEM. After incubation at 27 • C for 5 min, the solution was added to HUVECs and incubated at 37 • C. Four hour after transfection, the medium was removed and fresh medium containing 10% FBS was added. At 48 h after transfection, cells were collected for real-time PCR and western blot analysis to evaluate the effects of HBP1 on Fgl2. At 24 h after transfection, the CC10 group was supplemented with the CC10 protein (150 ng/mL). After 4 h of stimulation, IFN-γ (10 ng/mL) was added to these cells. These cells were then cultured for 24 h before they were harvested for real-time PCR studies to evaluate the effects of CC10 on Fgl2 by HBP1. Negative control was used as a control.
To detect whether there was a potential interaction between CC10 protein and Fgl2, CHO cells were transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2 for 48 h. Cells transfected with empty plasmid pcDNA3.1 (mock) were used as negative controls for CC10 gene transfection. Immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting were performed by using Pierce Co-Immunoprecipitation Kit (Pierce, USA). Total cell proteins were extracted as previously described (25) . The proteins were immunoprecipitated by mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). For co-immunoprecipitation experiments, western blotting was performed using both rat anti-human uteroglobin/SCGB1A1 Antibody (1:750, R&D, USA) Frontiers in Immunology | www.frontiersin.org and mouse anti-human Fgl2 antibody (1:500, Abnova). Control isotype rat IgG1 was used as a negative control for primary antibodies.
The human CC10 coding region gene, including a 389 bp sequence, was amplified from homogenized human turbinate tissue by RT-PCR. In this study, the sequences of PCR primers for CC10 were as follows: hCC10-forward, 5 ′ -CCC TCC ACC ATG AAA CTCG-3 ′ ; hCC10-reverse, 5 ′ -TGA GAT GCT TGT GGT TTA TTG AAG-3 ′ . The PCR products were cloned into pEASY-T1 cloning vector (TransGEN, Beijing, China) and then subcloned into HindIII/XbaI site of pcDNA3.1 vector (Invitrogen, USA) to form eukaryotic expression plasmids pcDNA3.1-hCC10.
Microarray analysis was used to screen changes in genome-wide gene expression patterns in THP-1 cells with or without CC10 protein. The changes in over 47,000 human gene expression patterns were assessed using Affymetrix gene microarrays (Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0) (CapitalBio Co.,Ltd., Beijing, China). Three replicates were used for microarrays analysis.
Data obtained from the experiments are expressed as means ± SEM. Survival curve comparisons were performed with the Log Rank test. Multiple group analyses for data were evaluated by one-way analyses of variance. Analyses of two group results were performed using Student's t-test to evaluate the statistical significance of differences. Values of P < 0.05 indicated significance.
To establish an animal model of mouse FH, MHV-3 was injected intraperitoneally to BALB/cJ mice (24 mice/group). To further study the role of CC10 in FH, recombinant mouse CC10 protein (2 µg/mouse) or saline was administrated into the tail vein 24 h prior to MHV-3 infection. The same dose of CC10 protein or saline was then administered 24 h later. The survival rate of the CC10 and saline groups was observed for 10 days. The results showed that mice in the two groups began to die at 48 h after injection of MHV-3 and exhibited symptoms of horripilation, slow activity, and reduced food consumption. In the CC10 group 24 mice were alive on day 3 after infection, 4 mice alive on day 4, and 3 of 24 (12.5%) mice recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis. At the same time, in saline treated group, there were 5 mice alive on day 3, 1 mice alive on day 4 after infection, and no mice survived to day 5. That is to say, the mice in the saline group died within 3 or 4 days. Three of 24 (12.5%) mice of the CC10 group recovered from fulminant viral hepatitis ( Figure 1A) .
To better understand the mechanisms underlying the biological effects of the CC10 protein, liver function (ALT and AST levels in serum) and liver histology in mice of MHV-3-infected was performed. Liver tissues were harvested 72 h following MHV-3 infection, and liver histology was detected by H&E staining. These results showed that there was substantial inflammatory cell infiltration and widespread necrosis of hepatocytes in the liver tissue of the saline group mice (Figure 1Ba ). There were rare or no infiltrating inflammatory cells, and few or no hepatocyte necrosis in the livers of mice in the CC10 group 72 h after MHV-3 infection (Figure 1Bb) . Serum ALT and AST levels in mice were observed 72 h after MHV-3 infection. The results showed that serum ALT and AST levels in the saline group reached a peak 72 h after MHV-3 infection, but there was no significant increase in the CC10 group compared to the levels in the control group (P < 0.01, Figure 1C) . These results suggested that CC10 protein has a role in protection against MHV-3-induced liver injury in mice.
To further elucidate the mechanisms of reduced liver injury following CC10 protein injection, we investigated the cytokines TNF-α and IL-1β expression. Because these two cytokines play a crucial role in the liver damage of FH. They are characterized by an increase in apoptosis. Levels of TNF-α and IL-1β in liver tissues were markedly reduced in the CC10 group (as shown in Figure 2A) . Hepatic apoptosis (Figure 2B ) was significantly reduced in the CC10 group.
We and collaborators have a long standing interest in studying the role of fgl2 in viral hepatitis. Fgl2 has been verified to play an essential role in the progression of fulminant viral hepatitis as we appreciate from previous reports. We have provided liver pathology figures and liver function for MHV-3 infected mice with a fgl2 gene knockout as shown in Supplementary Figure 1 .
The data was comparable with previous reports from our center and collaborators. From this current study we shown that CC10 plays a protective role in liver damage.To study the related molecules of CC10 in MHV-3-induced FH mice, we evaluated whether there was crosstalk between Fgl2 and CC10. We found that the expression of Fgl2 in the liver of mice was reduced 72 h after MHV-3 infection and treatment with CC10 protein (Figures 3A,B) . Furthermore, fibrin deposition, an indicator of liver injury associated with Fgl2 expression in FH, was also decreased in the livers of CC10-treated mice compared to that in controls (Figure 3C ). This indicates that CC10 treatment reduced liver injury after viral infection by inhibiting Fgl2 expression.
We examined the effect of increasing doses of CC10 protein (0, 50, 150, and 300 ng/mL) on IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. CC10 treatment showed a 10.1% decrease in THP-1 cells compared to that in control after stimulation with 10 ng/mL IFN-γ for 12 h. CC10 protein inhibited Fgl2 expression between doses of 0 ng/mL and 300 ng/mL (Figure 4A ). In particular, 150 ng/mL CC10 protein had the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression among the doses, and we chose this dose for the following experiments. We explored the effect of different time points of stimulation with a concentration of 150 ng/mL CC10 protein. After stimulation with CC10 protein for 6, 12, and 24 h compared to the PBS control, the strongest inhibitory effect on Fgl2 expression was noted at 12 h; hence, we chose this time point for the following studies ( Figure 4B ). An increasing number of studies suggest that macrophages are the primary source of Fgl2. In order to ascertain that CC10 has a direct effect on macrophages, we treated THP-1 cells with recombinant CC10 and assessed the expression of Fgl2. Unlike in controls, IFN-γ induced a significant increase in Fgl2 expression. This effect was attenuated when cells were treated with CC10 protein (Figures 4C,D) , revealing that CC10 directly reduces the levels of Fgl2 in macrophages. To further explore the possibility that CC10 protein directly acts on macrophages, we infected murine PEMs with MHV-3 in the presence of recombinant CC10 and determined Fgl2 expression. Compared to levels in the controls, MHV-3infected macrophages exhibited a significant increase in Fgl2 production, and this effect was abolished by using CC10 protein (Figures 5A,B) , indicating that CC10 directly modulates Fgl2 production in macrophages.
In order to determine genes that were downregulated after stimulation by CC10 protein, we used DNA microarray analysis to screen for differentially expressed genes. THP-1 cells were cultured and PMA was added to induce differentiation into macrophages. The production of Fgl2 was stimulated by IFNγ. The experimental group was treated with CC10 protein for microarray detection of differentially expressed genes. The results showed that the most obviously downregulated genes were UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, SOX4, HBP1, and Fgl2 (Supplementary Table 1) . And then these genes were tested by qPCR. However, UBE2W, HECTD1, MIR612, ATRX, and SOX4 was not differentially expressed by qPCR, while HBP1 and fgl2 were still down-regulated genes. DNA microarray analysis identified HBP1 as a down-regulated gene involved in the pathological processes of the regulation of CC10.
Recently, very limited studies have explored the role of HBP1 in FH. Nevertheless, the mechanistic functions of HBP1 in FH remain largely unexplored. Therefore, we selected this gene for further study. qPCR analysis confirmed that mRNA levels of HBP1 were significantly decreased in THP-1 cells after CC10
protein stimulation compared to that in the PBS control group (Figure 6A ).
We knocked down HBP1 using HBP1-siRNA. Then, transfection of HBP1-SiRNA into HUVECs was detected by qPCR and western-blotting methods. As expected, HBP1 knockdown led to significantly decreased expression of HBP1 (Figures 6B,C) . Furthermore, HBP1 knockdown impaired expression of Fgl2 (Figure 6D ), suggesting that HBP1 was able to activate Fgl2.
HBP1-SiRNA was used to transfect HUVECs. Then, IFN-γ was added to induce the expression of Fgl2 followed by stimulation with CC10 protein (150 ng/ml) after 2 h. Finally, we explored the expression of Fgl2 by qPCR. The results showed that HBP1-SiRNA treatment abrogated the inhibitory effect of CC10 on Fgl2 expression in HUVECs (Figure 7) . That is to say, CC10 could suppress Fgl2 expression in macrophages. Such an effect may be mediated by the transcription factor HBP1.
It is well-known that CC10 protein can suppress the immune response. In animal models of allergic diseases of the respiratory tract, most of evidences confirm this inhibition (26) . Its function in FH has not been investigated yet. Here, we used a murine FH model established by MHV-3 infection to explore the effects of CC10 in this disease process. To determine the role of CC10 in the pathogenesis of FH, CC10 protein was injected into a mouse FH model established by MHV-3 infection. MHV-3-induced liver injury in CC10-treated mice occurred rarely and the areas of lesions were much fewer than those in saline-treated control mice. In summary, these results suggested that CC10 could reduce pathological liver damage in this FH model together with lower mortality rates followed by MHV-3 infection.
MHV-3 induced fulminant viral hepatitis progresses rapidly and infected mice die within 3-5 days. Previous studies suggested fgl2 played a vital role in this process with a 15-40% increase of survival when fgl2 was deleted (12, 15, 27, 28) . Multiple inflammatory factors or mediators including TNF-α and IFN-γ, IL-1β and C5aR have been demonstrated to promote FH progression with significant discrepancies between liver damage and survival rate (29) (30) (31) (32) , which is accordant with our observation that CC10 substantially alleviated liver injury though survival rate improved mildly. The survival rate based on hours may be more accurate to examine the effect of CC10 on FH.
It is speculated that fgl2 can mediate lethality in MHV-3-induced FH. This is due to the fact that fgl2 induces the deposition of fibrinogen, which leads to activation of the coagulation cascade and induction of procoagulant activity (15) . To determine whether the tissue necrosis was mediated by Fgl2 in CC10-treated mice following infection, Fgl2 expression was observed. Results suggested that the expression of Fgl2 was significantly increased in MHV-3-induced FH mice and CC10 treatment significantly reduced the production of Fgl2 in the infected liver and serum. In addition, decreased fibrinogen deposition was also observed in the livers of CC10-treated mice. Therefore, our research results strongly clarify that the lower mortality of CC10-treated mice after MHV-3 infection is due to the lower levels of Fgl2 and decreased fibrinogen deposition.
Indeed, it has been reported that Fgl2 is expressed on macrophages, and the expression of Fgl2 is believed to be induced by IFN-γ and TNF-α (22) . Cultured THP-1 cells activated by IFN-γ or IL-2 have been demonstrated, with induction of Fgl2 expression and enhanced activation of human prothrombin (23) . Therefore, in this study, we explored this cell line to investigate the modulation of CC10 on Fgl2. Surprisingly, we found that CC10 directly inhibited IFN-γ-induced Fgl2 expression in THP-1 cells. As we know, IFN-γ has proved to be the main cytokine that leads to the development and progression of FH. Also, it was shown that IFN-γ might exert its own proinflammatory biological function through enhancing Fgl2 expression. Therefore, in our study, CC10 might counter the effect of IFN-γ in the setting of FH, which substantiates its role in FH. These results demonstrated that CC10 regulates the expression of Fgl2 in macrophages.
In the current study, we used co-immunoprecipitation to analyze binding between CC10 and Fgl2. In this study, we investigated possible protein-protein interactions between CC10 and Fgl2 in vitro. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells transfected with pcDNA3.1-hCC10 and pcDNA3.1-hFgl2. Cellular proteins were immunoprecipitated with anti-CC10 antibody or anti-Fgl2 antibody. Immunoblotting was performed with anti-Fgl2 and anti-CC10 antibodies. Immunoprecipitation of protein extracts from pcDNA 3.1-CC10 and pcDNA3.1-Fgl2 co-transfected CHO cells with anti-Fgl2 or anti-CC10 antibody followed by western blotting with Fgl2 and CC10 antibodies indicated that CC10 did not co-immunoprecipitate with Fgl2, showing that there is no direct relationship between CC10 and Fgl2 (data not shown). The results showed that CC10 has no direct interaction with Fgl2. From our previous study the gene of fgl2 contributed profoundly in MHV-3 induced fulminant hepatitis and is extensively expressed in macrophages and endothelium (12, 33) . Our microarray indicated a CC10 down-regulated fgl2 expression and this is further confirmed by qPCR and Western blotting in vivo (peritoneal macrophages) and in vitro (THP-1, macrophage cell line). Therefore, it is reasonable to focus on macrophages to display the effect of CC10 on fgl2 expression and eventually mice survival. We entirely agree there may be other possibilities for a protective effect of CC10 to contribute to the disease process. This is worth further studies. The potential receptor of CC10 has not been revealed yet. Our previous study have demonstrated that CC10 have effect of dendritic cells in allergic rhinitis (34) . In this research, we evaluated the effect of CC10 on macrophages functions and found Fgl2 was substantially down-regulated upon CC10 treatment, therefore, we speculate that potential CC10 receptor may be also expressed on macrophages. The potential target of CC10 on other immune cells cannot be excluded.
DNA microarray analysis is one of the most powerful approaches for the potential identification of unexpected genes involved in pathogenic processes. By using this approach, HMGbox transcription factor 1 (HBP1) was found to be one of the most downregulated genes after CC10 treatment of THP-1 cells. HBP1 is a well-described transcriptional repressor that modulates expression of genes involved in cell cycle progression. In a recent study, it was found that HBP1 is a direct target of miR-21 and confirmed that HBP1 modulates the inhibitory function of miR-21-ASO in hepatosteatosis and carcinogenesis simultaneously (23) . HBP1 is an endogenous inhibitor of the Wnt signaling pathway in both normal and cancer cells. The tumor suppressor role of HBP1 has been reported in some malignancies, such as oral cancer and glioma (35) . However, an association between HBP1 and Fgl2 has not been investigated yet. The current study clearly demonstrated that CC10 protects against MHV-3 induced FH via suppression of Fgl2 expression. Such effects might be mediated by HBP1. However, the functional status of HBP1 in the CC10 pathway requires further research, and such studies are conducting in our laboratory.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that CC10 could limit the immunopathological damage in MHV-3-induced FH mice. Our results suggest that enhancing CC10 expression by an immunotherapeutic approach might be an effective treatment for FH.
HY performed all the described experiments and wrote the manuscript. YL assisted with some experiments, analyzed experimental results, and edited the manuscript. HW analyzed experimental results. XW reviewed and edited the manuscript. JH, WY, DX, XL, GS, and QN provided experimental help and design. | 1,631 | How long after MHV-3 infection were liver samples taken? | {
"answer_start": [
19631
],
"text": [
"72 h"
]
} | 5,297 |
544 | New Isoxazolidine-Conjugates of Quinazolinones—Synthesis, Antiviral and Cytostatic Activity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6273226/
SHA: eefddcf51f8426ecaa9e3ace144dadfb34a74cf5
Authors: Piotrowska, Dorota G.; Andrei, Graciela; Schols, Dominique; Snoeck, Robert; Grabkowska-Drużyc, Magdalena
Date: 2016-07-22
DOI: 10.3390/molecules21070959
License: cc-by
Abstract: A novel series of (3-diethoxyphosphoryl)isoxazolidines substituted at C5 with various quinazolinones have been synthesized by the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone with N3-substitued 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones. All isoxazolidines were assessed for antiviral activity against a broad range of DNA and RNA viruses. Isoxazolidines trans-11f/cis-11f (90:10), trans-11h and trans-11i/cis-11i (97:3) showed weak activity (EC(50) = 6.84, 15.29 and 9.44 μM) toward VZV (TK(+) strain) which was only one order of magnitude lower than that of acyclovir used as a reference drug. Phosphonates trans-11b/cis-11b (90:10), trans-11c, trans-11e/cis-11e (90:10) and trans-11g appeared slightly active toward cytomegalovirus (EC(50) = 27–45 μM). Compounds containing benzyl substituents at N3 in the quinazolinone skeleton exhibited slight antiproliferative activity towards the tested immortalized cells with IC(50) in the 21–102 μM range.
Text: Nitrogen-containing heterocycles form the core of natural products (e.g., alkaloids) and they are also present in many pharmacophores as well as in numerous marketed drugs. Among them, quinazolines and quinazolinones have drawn special attention due to the broad spectrum of biological activities of their derivatives, including sedative [1] [2] [3] , anticancer [4] [5] [6] [7] , antiviral [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] , antibacterial [13] [14] [15] , antifungal [15, 16] , anti-inflamatory [15, [17] [18] [19] and antifibrotic [20, 21] activities. Several reviews focused on the synthetic strategies and biological activities of these compounds have been published [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] . The significant impact of various functional groups installed into quinazoline/quinazolinone frameworks on pharmacological properties have been proven.
In the last decades several compounds containing the quinazolin-4-one framework, which exhibited promising anticancer as well as antiviral properties, have been obtained ( Figure 1 ). Furthermore, some biologically active substituted quinazolin-4(3H)-ones were isolated from various fungi and bacteria species. For example, 2-(4-hydroxybenzyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one (1) was found in an entomopathogenic fungus Isaria farinosa and its strong inhibitory properties on the replication of tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) [30] were recognised, whereas its 2-(4-hydroxybenzoyl) analogue 2 present in fungus from Penicillium genus appeared only slightly active toward TMV [30] . Moreover, compound 1 exhibited significant cytotoxicity toward various cancer cell lines [31, 32] . Quinazolinone 3 isolated from Streptomyces sp. appeared cytotoxic against Vero cells [33] . Very recently synthetic pyridine-containing analogue 4 and its 3-substituted derivatives 5 and 6 have been obtained and their slight activity against influenza A virus was revealed [34] . On the other hand, various 2,3-disubstitued quinazolin-4(3H)-ones, including compounds 7-10, have been found to possess antitumor activity [35] . slight activity against influenza A virus was revealed [34] . On the other hand, various 2,3-disubstitued quinazolin-4(3H)-ones, including compounds 7-10, have been found to possess antitumor activity [35] . In continuation of our studies on antiviral and cytostatic activity of isoxazolidine analogues of C-nucleoside analogues, we designed a new series of compounds of the general formula 11 containing a substituted quinazolinone moiety as a false nucleobase at C5 in the isoxazolidine ring and the diethoxyphosphoryl function attached at C3. Our synthetic strategy to compounds trans-11/cis-11 relies on the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone 12 [36] with 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 substituted at N3 (Scheme 1). Scheme 1. Retrosynthesis of (isoxazolidinyl) phosphonates trans-11/cis-11.
2-Vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 modified at N3 with substituted benzyl groups were synthesized from commercially available 2-aminobenzamide (14) by acylation with 3-chloropropionyl chloride followed by cyclization and dehydrohalogenation to prepare 2-vinyl-3Hquinazolin-4-one (13a) as a key intermediate [37] and a subsequent reaction with substituted benzyl bromides 13b-i [38] (Scheme 2). Moreover, compounds 13j (R = Me) and 13k (R = Et) were also obtained with intention to determine the influence of the benzyl substituent on biological activity of the designed isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11. In the 1 H-NMR spectra of compounds 13a-k characteristic signals for vinyl protons were observed in the 6.94-5.59 ppm (three doublets of doublets). In continuation of our studies on antiviral and cytostatic activity of isoxazolidine analogues of C-nucleoside analogues, we designed a new series of compounds of the general formula 11 containing a substituted quinazolinone moiety as a false nucleobase at C5 in the isoxazolidine ring and the diethoxyphosphoryl function attached at C3. Our synthetic strategy to compounds trans-11/cis-11 relies on the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone 12 [36] with 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 substituted at N3 (Scheme 1). slight activity against influenza A virus was revealed [34] . On the other hand, various 2,3-disubstitued quinazolin-4(3H)-ones, including compounds 7-10, have been found to possess antitumor activity [35] . In continuation of our studies on antiviral and cytostatic activity of isoxazolidine analogues of C-nucleoside analogues, we designed a new series of compounds of the general formula 11 containing a substituted quinazolinone moiety as a false nucleobase at C5 in the isoxazolidine ring and the diethoxyphosphoryl function attached at C3. Our synthetic strategy to compounds trans-11/cis-11 relies on the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone 12 [36] with 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 substituted at N3 (Scheme 1). Scheme 1. Retrosynthesis of (isoxazolidinyl) phosphonates trans-11/cis-11.
2-Vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 modified at N3 with substituted benzyl groups were synthesized from commercially available 2-aminobenzamide (14) by acylation with 3-chloropropionyl chloride followed by cyclization and dehydrohalogenation to prepare 2-vinyl-3Hquinazolin-4-one (13a) as a key intermediate [37] and a subsequent reaction with substituted benzyl bromides 13b-i [38] (Scheme 2). Moreover, compounds 13j (R = Me) and 13k (R = Et) were also obtained with intention to determine the influence of the benzyl substituent on biological activity of the designed isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11. In the 1 H-NMR spectra of compounds 13a-k characteristic signals for vinyl protons were observed in the 6.94-5.59 ppm (three doublets of doublets). Scheme 1. Retrosynthesis of (isoxazolidinyl) phosphonates trans-11/cis-11.
2-Vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 modified at N3 with substituted benzyl groups were synthesized from commercially available 2-aminobenzamide (14) by acylation with 3-chloro-propionyl chloride followed by cyclization and dehydrohalogenation to prepare 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-one (13a) as a key intermediate [37] and a subsequent reaction with substituted benzyl bromides 13b-i [38] (Scheme 2). Moreover, compounds 13j (R = Me) and 13k (R = Et) were also obtained with intention to determine the influence of the benzyl substituent on biological activity of the designed isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11. In the 1 H-NMR spectra of compounds 13a-k characteristic signals for vinyl protons were observed in the 6.94-5.59 ppm (three doublets of doublets). The 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of a nitrone 12 with 2-vinylquinazolinones 13a-k led to the formation of diastereoisomeric mixtures of 5-substituted (3-diethoxyphosphoryl)isoxazolidines trans-11 and cis-11 with good (80%-88%) diastereoselectivities (Scheme 3, Table 1 ). Ratios of cis/trans diastereoisomers were calculated from 31 P-NMR spectra of crude reaction mixtures and confirmed by the analysis of 1 H-NMR spectral data. Crude mixtures of isoxazolidine cycloadducts were then subjected to purification on silica gel columns. However, attempts to isolate pure diastereoisomers were fruitful for trans-11a The relative configurations of isoxazolidines trans-11a and cis-11a were established based on our previous studies on stereochemistry of cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone (12) with various vinyl aryls [39, 40] since similar 1 H-NMR spectral patters for the respective series of trans-and cis-isoxazolidines were observed. Since for compound trans-11a all necessary coupling constants were successfully extracted from the 1 H-and 13 C-NMR spectra, detailed conformational analysis was performed based on these data {J(H3-H4α) = 9.3 Hz [41] , J(H3-H4β) = 8. 3 Hz, J(H4α-P) = 9.9 Hz The 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of a nitrone 12 with 2-vinylquinazolinones 13a-k led to the formation of diastereoisomeric mixtures of 5-substituted (3-diethoxyphosphoryl)isoxazolidines trans-11 and cis-11 with good (80%-88%) diastereoselectivities (Scheme 3, Table 1 ). Ratios of cis/trans diastereoisomers were calculated from 31 P-NMR spectra of crude reaction mixtures and confirmed by the analysis of 1 H-NMR spectral data. Crude mixtures of isoxazolidine cycloadducts were then subjected to purification on silica gel columns. However, attempts to isolate pure diastereoisomers were fruitful for trans-11a (R = H), trans-11c (R = 2-NO 2 -C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ), trans-11g (R = 3-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ), trans-11h (R = 4-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) and trans-11j (R = Me) only. Table 1 ). Ratios of cis/trans diastereoisomers were calculated from 31 P-NMR spectra of crude reaction mixtures and confirmed by the analysis of 1 H-NMR spectral data. Crude mixtures of isoxazolidine cycloadducts were then subjected to purification on silica gel columns. However, attempts to isolate pure diastereoisomers were fruitful for trans-11a (R = H), trans-11c (R = 2-NO2-C6H4-CH2), trans-11g (R = 3-F-C6H4-CH2), trans-11h (R = 4-F-C6H4-CH2) and trans-11j (R = Me) only. The relative configurations of isoxazolidines trans-11a and cis-11a were established based on our previous studies on stereochemistry of cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone (12) with various vinyl aryls [39, 40] since similar 1 H-NMR spectral patters for the respective series of trans-and cis-isoxazolidines were observed. Since for compound trans-11a all necessary coupling constants were successfully extracted from the 1 H-and 13 C-NMR spectra, detailed conformational analysis was performed based on these data {J(H3-H4α) = 9.3 Hz [41] , J(H3-H4β) = 8. 3 Hz, J(H4α-P) = 9.9 Hz Scheme 3. Synthesis of Isoxazolidines cis-11a-k and trans-11a-k. Reaction and conditions: a. toluene, 70˝C, 24 h. The relative configurations of isoxazolidines trans-11a and cis-11a were established based on our previous studies on stereochemistry of cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone (12) with various vinyl aryls [39, 40] since similar 1 H-NMR spectral patters for the respective series of transand cis-isoxazolidines were observed. Since for compound trans-11a all necessary coupling constants were successfully extracted from the 1 H-and 13 C-NMR spectra, detailed conformational analysis was performed based on these data {J (H3-H4α) = 9.3 Hz [41] , J (H3-H4β) = 8. 3 Hz, J (H4α-P) = 9.9 Hz [42, 43] , J (H4β-P) = 16.9 Hz, J (H4α-H5) = 6.2 Hz, J (H4β-H5) = 8. 3 Hz, J (CCCP) = 8.5 Hz [44, 45] } and revealed that isoxazolidine ring in trans-11a adopts a 3 E conformation in which the diethoxyphosphoryl group resides in the equatorial position of the isoxazolidine ring while a quinazolinone substituent is located pseudoequatorially (Figure 2 ). On the other hand, cis configuration of the minor isomer was established from the corresponding couplings [J (H3-H4α) = 9.0 Hz, J (H3-H4β) = 6.5 Hz, J (H4α-P) = 11.2 Hz, J (H4β-P) = 20.0 Hz, J (H4α-H5) = 9.1 Hz, J (H4β-H5) = 3.9 Hz, J (CCCP) = 7. 3 Hz] indicating the 2 E conformation of the isoxazolidine ring ( Figure 2 ). The additional arguments to support our assignments follow from shielding of the CH 3 CH 2 OP protons observed for the cis isomer (∆δ ca. 0.1 ppm) when compared with the trans-11a. Furthermore, it was found that on a 1 H-NMR spectrum taken on the 83:17 mixture of cisand trans-11a, the H-N proton in the quinazolinone ring of cis-11a was significantly deshielded (∆δ = 0.7 ppm) when compared with the trans isomer, highly likely, as a result of the hydrogen bond formation with the phosphoryl oxygen amide, a phenomenon spatially achievable in the cis isomer only.
Since introduction of various substituents at N3 of quinazolinone moiety has no influence on the stereochemical outcome of the cycloaddition therefore configuration of the all major isoxazolidines 11 were assigned as trans, thereby minor ones as cis. Figure 2 ). The additional arguments to support our assignments follow from shielding of the CH3CH2OP protons observed for the cis isomer (Δδ ca. 0.1 ppm) when compared with the trans-11a. Furthermore, it was found that on a 1 H-NMR spectrum taken on the 83:17 mixture of cis-and trans-11a, the H-N proton in the quinazolinone ring of cis-11a was significantly deshielded (Δδ = 0.7 ppm) when compared with the trans isomer, highly likely, as a result of the hydrogen bond formation with the phosphoryl oxygen amide, a phenomenon spatially achievable in the cis isomer only.
Since introduction of various substituents at N3 of quinazolinone moiety has no influence on the stereochemical outcome of the cycloaddition therefore configuration of the all major isoxazolidines 11 were assigned as trans, thereby minor ones as cis. Ganciclovir, cidofovir, acyclovir, brivudin, zalcitabine, zanamivir, alovudine, amantadine, rimantadine, ribavirin, dextran sulfate (molecular weight 10,000, DS-10000), mycophenolic acid, Hippeastrum hybrid agglutinin (HHA) and Urtica dioica agglutinin (UDA) were used as the reference compounds. The antiviral activity was expressed as the EC50: the compound concentration required to reduce virus plaque formation (VZV) by 50% or to reduce virus-induced cytopathogenicity by 50% (other viruses).
Several isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11 were able to weakly inhibit the replication of TK + and TK − VZV strains with EC50 values in the range of 6.84-100 μM ( Table 2 ). Among them, phosphonates Ganciclovir, cidofovir, acyclovir, brivudin, zalcitabine, zanamivir, alovudine, amantadine, rimantadine, ribavirin, dextran sulfate (molecular weight 10,000, DS-10000), mycophenolic acid, Hippeastrum hybrid agglutinin (HHA) and Urtica dioica agglutinin (UDA) were used as the reference compounds.
The antiviral activity was expressed as the EC 50 : the compound concentration required to reduce virus plaque formation (VZV) by 50% or to reduce virus-induced cytopathogenicity by 50% (other viruses).
Several isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11 were able to weakly inhibit the replication of TK + and TKV ZV strains with EC 50 values in the range of 6.84-100 µM ( Table 2) . Among them, phosphonates trans-11f/cis-11f (90:10) (R = 2-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) (EC 50 = 6.84 µM), trans-11h (R = 4-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) (EC 50 = 15.29 µM), trans-11i/cis-11i (97:3) (R = 2,4-diF-C 6 H 3 -CH 2 ) (EC 50 = 9.44 µM) were the most active toward TK + VZV Oka strain, while exhibiting no activity toward TK´VZV strain. The activity of these isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11 against TK + VZV Oka strain was 8-to 22-folds lower than that of the reference drug acyclovir. On the other hand, the EC 50 values for the TK´VZV 07-1 strain (which is an acyclovir resistant strain) of the phosphonates trans-11e/cis-11e (90:10) (R = 4-NO 2 -C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) (EC 50 = 42.87 µM) and trans-11k/cis-11k (97:3) (R = Et) (EC 50 = 41.57 µM) were comparable to that of acyclovir (EC 50 = 39.69 µM). These derivatives showed similar EC 50 's for TK + and TK´VZV strains and therefore their potency against TK + VZV was approximately 50-fold lower compared to acyclovir.
Furthermore, compounds trans-11b/cis-11b (90:10) (R = C 6 H 5 -CH 2 ), trans-11c (R = 2-NO 2 -C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ), trans-11e/cis-11e (90:10) (R = 4-NO 2 -C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) and trans-11g (R = 3-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) showed some activity against human cytomegalovirus (EC 50 = 27-45 µM), although they were less active than ganciclovir and cidofovir used as the reference compounds ( Table 3) . None of the phosphonate derivatives here described showed activity against the other tested DNA and RNA viruses.
The 50% cytostatic inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ) causing a 50% decrease in cell proliferation was determined against murine leukemia L1210, human lymphocyte CEM, human cervix carcinoma HeLa and immortalized human dermal microvacsular endothelial cells (HMEC-1). Isoxazolidines trans-11a (R = H) and trans-11j (R = Me) did not inhibit cell proliferation at the highest tested concentration (i.e., 250 µM), whereas trans-11k/cis-11k (97:3) (R = Et) appeared slightly cytostatic towards the tested cell lines (IC 50 = 85-101 µM). On the other hand (Table 4 , entries b to i), compounds having benzyl substituents at N3 in the quinazolinone moiety showed lower IC 50 values (IC 50 = 21-102 µM) thereby indicating that installation of functionalized benzyl groups was profitable for inhibitory properties. Table 4 . Inhibitory effect of the tested compounds against the proliferation of murine leukemia (L1210), human T-lymphocyte (CEM), human cervix carcinoma (HeLa) and immortalized human dermal microvascular endothelial cells (HMEC-1).
To the solution of 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-one (13a, 1.00 mmol) in acetonitrile (15 mL) potassium carbonate (3.00 mmol) was added. After 15 min the respective benzyl bromide (1.10 mmol) was added and the reaction mixture was stirred under reflux for 4 h. A solvent was removed and the residue was extracted with water (3ˆ10 mL). An organic layer was dried (MgSO 4 ), concentrated and the crude product was purified on a silica gel column with a methylene chloride: hexane mixture (7:3, v/v) followed by crystallisation (chloroform-petroleum ether) to give pure quinazolinones 13b-e and 13g-i. 133.57, 128.60, 128.28, 128.25, 127.67, 126.60, 123.81, 123.61, 115.59, 68.32 (s, N-CH 2 ) . Anal. Calcd. for C 17 To the solution of 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-one (13a, 1.00 mmol) in acetonitrile (15 mL) potassium carbonate (3.00 mmol) was added. After 15 min. iodomethane (2.00 mmol) or iodoethane (1.10 mmol) was added and the reaction mixture was stirred at 60˝C for 5 h. The solvent was removed and a residue was extracted with water (3ˆ10 mL). Organic layer was dried (MgSO 4 ), concentrated and the crude product was purified on a silica gel column with methylene chloride:hexane mixture (7:3, v/v) followed by crystallization (chloroform : petroleum ether) to give pure quinazolinones 13j [35] or 13k.
3-Methyl-2-vinylquinazolin-4(3H)-one (13j). Amorphous solid, m.p. = 122˝C-124˝C (reference [35] m.p. = 123˝C-125˝C).
A solution of the nitrone 12 (1.0 mmol) and the respective vinyl quinazolinone (1.0 mmol) in toluene (2 mL) was stirred at 70˝C until the disappearance (TLC) of the starting nitrone. All volatiles were removed in vacuo and crude products were subjected to chromatography on silica gel columns with a chloroform/methanol (100:1, 50:1, 20:1, v/v) mixtures as eluents.
Diethyl trans-(2-methyl-5-(4-oxo-3,4-dihydroquinazolin-2-yl)isoxazolidin-3-yl)phosphonate (trans-11a). Yellowish oil; IR (film, cm´1) ν max : 3085, 2980, 2929, 2782, 1687, 1610, 1469, 1331, 1132, 1098, 1052 , 13 Diethyl trans-(2-methyl-5-(3-(3-nitrobenzyl)-4-oxo-3,4-dihydroquinazolin-2-yl)isoxazolidin-3-yl)-phosphonate (trans-11d). Data noted below correspond to a 92:8 mixture of trans-11d and cis-11d. A yellowish oil; IR (film, cm´1) ν max : 3070, 2982, 2930, 2910, 1620, 1574, 1531, 1497, 1415, 1298, 1103, 1025, 774 | 1,562 | Compounds from what framework have shown promising anticancer and antiviral properties? | {
"answer_start": [
2259
],
"text": [
"quinazolin-4-one"
]
} | 3,039 |
545 | New Isoxazolidine-Conjugates of Quinazolinones—Synthesis, Antiviral and Cytostatic Activity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6273226/
SHA: eefddcf51f8426ecaa9e3ace144dadfb34a74cf5
Authors: Piotrowska, Dorota G.; Andrei, Graciela; Schols, Dominique; Snoeck, Robert; Grabkowska-Drużyc, Magdalena
Date: 2016-07-22
DOI: 10.3390/molecules21070959
License: cc-by
Abstract: A novel series of (3-diethoxyphosphoryl)isoxazolidines substituted at C5 with various quinazolinones have been synthesized by the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone with N3-substitued 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones. All isoxazolidines were assessed for antiviral activity against a broad range of DNA and RNA viruses. Isoxazolidines trans-11f/cis-11f (90:10), trans-11h and trans-11i/cis-11i (97:3) showed weak activity (EC(50) = 6.84, 15.29 and 9.44 μM) toward VZV (TK(+) strain) which was only one order of magnitude lower than that of acyclovir used as a reference drug. Phosphonates trans-11b/cis-11b (90:10), trans-11c, trans-11e/cis-11e (90:10) and trans-11g appeared slightly active toward cytomegalovirus (EC(50) = 27–45 μM). Compounds containing benzyl substituents at N3 in the quinazolinone skeleton exhibited slight antiproliferative activity towards the tested immortalized cells with IC(50) in the 21–102 μM range.
Text: Nitrogen-containing heterocycles form the core of natural products (e.g., alkaloids) and they are also present in many pharmacophores as well as in numerous marketed drugs. Among them, quinazolines and quinazolinones have drawn special attention due to the broad spectrum of biological activities of their derivatives, including sedative [1] [2] [3] , anticancer [4] [5] [6] [7] , antiviral [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] , antibacterial [13] [14] [15] , antifungal [15, 16] , anti-inflamatory [15, [17] [18] [19] and antifibrotic [20, 21] activities. Several reviews focused on the synthetic strategies and biological activities of these compounds have been published [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] . The significant impact of various functional groups installed into quinazoline/quinazolinone frameworks on pharmacological properties have been proven.
In the last decades several compounds containing the quinazolin-4-one framework, which exhibited promising anticancer as well as antiviral properties, have been obtained ( Figure 1 ). Furthermore, some biologically active substituted quinazolin-4(3H)-ones were isolated from various fungi and bacteria species. For example, 2-(4-hydroxybenzyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one (1) was found in an entomopathogenic fungus Isaria farinosa and its strong inhibitory properties on the replication of tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) [30] were recognised, whereas its 2-(4-hydroxybenzoyl) analogue 2 present in fungus from Penicillium genus appeared only slightly active toward TMV [30] . Moreover, compound 1 exhibited significant cytotoxicity toward various cancer cell lines [31, 32] . Quinazolinone 3 isolated from Streptomyces sp. appeared cytotoxic against Vero cells [33] . Very recently synthetic pyridine-containing analogue 4 and its 3-substituted derivatives 5 and 6 have been obtained and their slight activity against influenza A virus was revealed [34] . On the other hand, various 2,3-disubstitued quinazolin-4(3H)-ones, including compounds 7-10, have been found to possess antitumor activity [35] . slight activity against influenza A virus was revealed [34] . On the other hand, various 2,3-disubstitued quinazolin-4(3H)-ones, including compounds 7-10, have been found to possess antitumor activity [35] . In continuation of our studies on antiviral and cytostatic activity of isoxazolidine analogues of C-nucleoside analogues, we designed a new series of compounds of the general formula 11 containing a substituted quinazolinone moiety as a false nucleobase at C5 in the isoxazolidine ring and the diethoxyphosphoryl function attached at C3. Our synthetic strategy to compounds trans-11/cis-11 relies on the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone 12 [36] with 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 substituted at N3 (Scheme 1). Scheme 1. Retrosynthesis of (isoxazolidinyl) phosphonates trans-11/cis-11.
2-Vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 modified at N3 with substituted benzyl groups were synthesized from commercially available 2-aminobenzamide (14) by acylation with 3-chloropropionyl chloride followed by cyclization and dehydrohalogenation to prepare 2-vinyl-3Hquinazolin-4-one (13a) as a key intermediate [37] and a subsequent reaction with substituted benzyl bromides 13b-i [38] (Scheme 2). Moreover, compounds 13j (R = Me) and 13k (R = Et) were also obtained with intention to determine the influence of the benzyl substituent on biological activity of the designed isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11. In the 1 H-NMR spectra of compounds 13a-k characteristic signals for vinyl protons were observed in the 6.94-5.59 ppm (three doublets of doublets). In continuation of our studies on antiviral and cytostatic activity of isoxazolidine analogues of C-nucleoside analogues, we designed a new series of compounds of the general formula 11 containing a substituted quinazolinone moiety as a false nucleobase at C5 in the isoxazolidine ring and the diethoxyphosphoryl function attached at C3. Our synthetic strategy to compounds trans-11/cis-11 relies on the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone 12 [36] with 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 substituted at N3 (Scheme 1). slight activity against influenza A virus was revealed [34] . On the other hand, various 2,3-disubstitued quinazolin-4(3H)-ones, including compounds 7-10, have been found to possess antitumor activity [35] . In continuation of our studies on antiviral and cytostatic activity of isoxazolidine analogues of C-nucleoside analogues, we designed a new series of compounds of the general formula 11 containing a substituted quinazolinone moiety as a false nucleobase at C5 in the isoxazolidine ring and the diethoxyphosphoryl function attached at C3. Our synthetic strategy to compounds trans-11/cis-11 relies on the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone 12 [36] with 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 substituted at N3 (Scheme 1). Scheme 1. Retrosynthesis of (isoxazolidinyl) phosphonates trans-11/cis-11.
2-Vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 modified at N3 with substituted benzyl groups were synthesized from commercially available 2-aminobenzamide (14) by acylation with 3-chloropropionyl chloride followed by cyclization and dehydrohalogenation to prepare 2-vinyl-3Hquinazolin-4-one (13a) as a key intermediate [37] and a subsequent reaction with substituted benzyl bromides 13b-i [38] (Scheme 2). Moreover, compounds 13j (R = Me) and 13k (R = Et) were also obtained with intention to determine the influence of the benzyl substituent on biological activity of the designed isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11. In the 1 H-NMR spectra of compounds 13a-k characteristic signals for vinyl protons were observed in the 6.94-5.59 ppm (three doublets of doublets). Scheme 1. Retrosynthesis of (isoxazolidinyl) phosphonates trans-11/cis-11.
2-Vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-ones 13 modified at N3 with substituted benzyl groups were synthesized from commercially available 2-aminobenzamide (14) by acylation with 3-chloro-propionyl chloride followed by cyclization and dehydrohalogenation to prepare 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-one (13a) as a key intermediate [37] and a subsequent reaction with substituted benzyl bromides 13b-i [38] (Scheme 2). Moreover, compounds 13j (R = Me) and 13k (R = Et) were also obtained with intention to determine the influence of the benzyl substituent on biological activity of the designed isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11. In the 1 H-NMR spectra of compounds 13a-k characteristic signals for vinyl protons were observed in the 6.94-5.59 ppm (three doublets of doublets). The 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of a nitrone 12 with 2-vinylquinazolinones 13a-k led to the formation of diastereoisomeric mixtures of 5-substituted (3-diethoxyphosphoryl)isoxazolidines trans-11 and cis-11 with good (80%-88%) diastereoselectivities (Scheme 3, Table 1 ). Ratios of cis/trans diastereoisomers were calculated from 31 P-NMR spectra of crude reaction mixtures and confirmed by the analysis of 1 H-NMR spectral data. Crude mixtures of isoxazolidine cycloadducts were then subjected to purification on silica gel columns. However, attempts to isolate pure diastereoisomers were fruitful for trans-11a The relative configurations of isoxazolidines trans-11a and cis-11a were established based on our previous studies on stereochemistry of cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone (12) with various vinyl aryls [39, 40] since similar 1 H-NMR spectral patters for the respective series of trans-and cis-isoxazolidines were observed. Since for compound trans-11a all necessary coupling constants were successfully extracted from the 1 H-and 13 C-NMR spectra, detailed conformational analysis was performed based on these data {J(H3-H4α) = 9.3 Hz [41] , J(H3-H4β) = 8. 3 Hz, J(H4α-P) = 9.9 Hz The 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of a nitrone 12 with 2-vinylquinazolinones 13a-k led to the formation of diastereoisomeric mixtures of 5-substituted (3-diethoxyphosphoryl)isoxazolidines trans-11 and cis-11 with good (80%-88%) diastereoselectivities (Scheme 3, Table 1 ). Ratios of cis/trans diastereoisomers were calculated from 31 P-NMR spectra of crude reaction mixtures and confirmed by the analysis of 1 H-NMR spectral data. Crude mixtures of isoxazolidine cycloadducts were then subjected to purification on silica gel columns. However, attempts to isolate pure diastereoisomers were fruitful for trans-11a (R = H), trans-11c (R = 2-NO 2 -C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ), trans-11g (R = 3-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ), trans-11h (R = 4-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) and trans-11j (R = Me) only. Table 1 ). Ratios of cis/trans diastereoisomers were calculated from 31 P-NMR spectra of crude reaction mixtures and confirmed by the analysis of 1 H-NMR spectral data. Crude mixtures of isoxazolidine cycloadducts were then subjected to purification on silica gel columns. However, attempts to isolate pure diastereoisomers were fruitful for trans-11a (R = H), trans-11c (R = 2-NO2-C6H4-CH2), trans-11g (R = 3-F-C6H4-CH2), trans-11h (R = 4-F-C6H4-CH2) and trans-11j (R = Me) only. The relative configurations of isoxazolidines trans-11a and cis-11a were established based on our previous studies on stereochemistry of cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone (12) with various vinyl aryls [39, 40] since similar 1 H-NMR spectral patters for the respective series of trans-and cis-isoxazolidines were observed. Since for compound trans-11a all necessary coupling constants were successfully extracted from the 1 H-and 13 C-NMR spectra, detailed conformational analysis was performed based on these data {J(H3-H4α) = 9.3 Hz [41] , J(H3-H4β) = 8. 3 Hz, J(H4α-P) = 9.9 Hz Scheme 3. Synthesis of Isoxazolidines cis-11a-k and trans-11a-k. Reaction and conditions: a. toluene, 70˝C, 24 h. The relative configurations of isoxazolidines trans-11a and cis-11a were established based on our previous studies on stereochemistry of cycloaddition of N-methyl-C-(diethoxyphosphoryl)nitrone (12) with various vinyl aryls [39, 40] since similar 1 H-NMR spectral patters for the respective series of transand cis-isoxazolidines were observed. Since for compound trans-11a all necessary coupling constants were successfully extracted from the 1 H-and 13 C-NMR spectra, detailed conformational analysis was performed based on these data {J (H3-H4α) = 9.3 Hz [41] , J (H3-H4β) = 8. 3 Hz, J (H4α-P) = 9.9 Hz [42, 43] , J (H4β-P) = 16.9 Hz, J (H4α-H5) = 6.2 Hz, J (H4β-H5) = 8. 3 Hz, J (CCCP) = 8.5 Hz [44, 45] } and revealed that isoxazolidine ring in trans-11a adopts a 3 E conformation in which the diethoxyphosphoryl group resides in the equatorial position of the isoxazolidine ring while a quinazolinone substituent is located pseudoequatorially (Figure 2 ). On the other hand, cis configuration of the minor isomer was established from the corresponding couplings [J (H3-H4α) = 9.0 Hz, J (H3-H4β) = 6.5 Hz, J (H4α-P) = 11.2 Hz, J (H4β-P) = 20.0 Hz, J (H4α-H5) = 9.1 Hz, J (H4β-H5) = 3.9 Hz, J (CCCP) = 7. 3 Hz] indicating the 2 E conformation of the isoxazolidine ring ( Figure 2 ). The additional arguments to support our assignments follow from shielding of the CH 3 CH 2 OP protons observed for the cis isomer (∆δ ca. 0.1 ppm) when compared with the trans-11a. Furthermore, it was found that on a 1 H-NMR spectrum taken on the 83:17 mixture of cisand trans-11a, the H-N proton in the quinazolinone ring of cis-11a was significantly deshielded (∆δ = 0.7 ppm) when compared with the trans isomer, highly likely, as a result of the hydrogen bond formation with the phosphoryl oxygen amide, a phenomenon spatially achievable in the cis isomer only.
Since introduction of various substituents at N3 of quinazolinone moiety has no influence on the stereochemical outcome of the cycloaddition therefore configuration of the all major isoxazolidines 11 were assigned as trans, thereby minor ones as cis. Figure 2 ). The additional arguments to support our assignments follow from shielding of the CH3CH2OP protons observed for the cis isomer (Δδ ca. 0.1 ppm) when compared with the trans-11a. Furthermore, it was found that on a 1 H-NMR spectrum taken on the 83:17 mixture of cis-and trans-11a, the H-N proton in the quinazolinone ring of cis-11a was significantly deshielded (Δδ = 0.7 ppm) when compared with the trans isomer, highly likely, as a result of the hydrogen bond formation with the phosphoryl oxygen amide, a phenomenon spatially achievable in the cis isomer only.
Since introduction of various substituents at N3 of quinazolinone moiety has no influence on the stereochemical outcome of the cycloaddition therefore configuration of the all major isoxazolidines 11 were assigned as trans, thereby minor ones as cis. Ganciclovir, cidofovir, acyclovir, brivudin, zalcitabine, zanamivir, alovudine, amantadine, rimantadine, ribavirin, dextran sulfate (molecular weight 10,000, DS-10000), mycophenolic acid, Hippeastrum hybrid agglutinin (HHA) and Urtica dioica agglutinin (UDA) were used as the reference compounds. The antiviral activity was expressed as the EC50: the compound concentration required to reduce virus plaque formation (VZV) by 50% or to reduce virus-induced cytopathogenicity by 50% (other viruses).
Several isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11 were able to weakly inhibit the replication of TK + and TK − VZV strains with EC50 values in the range of 6.84-100 μM ( Table 2 ). Among them, phosphonates Ganciclovir, cidofovir, acyclovir, brivudin, zalcitabine, zanamivir, alovudine, amantadine, rimantadine, ribavirin, dextran sulfate (molecular weight 10,000, DS-10000), mycophenolic acid, Hippeastrum hybrid agglutinin (HHA) and Urtica dioica agglutinin (UDA) were used as the reference compounds.
The antiviral activity was expressed as the EC 50 : the compound concentration required to reduce virus plaque formation (VZV) by 50% or to reduce virus-induced cytopathogenicity by 50% (other viruses).
Several isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11 were able to weakly inhibit the replication of TK + and TKV ZV strains with EC 50 values in the range of 6.84-100 µM ( Table 2) . Among them, phosphonates trans-11f/cis-11f (90:10) (R = 2-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) (EC 50 = 6.84 µM), trans-11h (R = 4-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) (EC 50 = 15.29 µM), trans-11i/cis-11i (97:3) (R = 2,4-diF-C 6 H 3 -CH 2 ) (EC 50 = 9.44 µM) were the most active toward TK + VZV Oka strain, while exhibiting no activity toward TK´VZV strain. The activity of these isoxazolidines trans-11/cis-11 against TK + VZV Oka strain was 8-to 22-folds lower than that of the reference drug acyclovir. On the other hand, the EC 50 values for the TK´VZV 07-1 strain (which is an acyclovir resistant strain) of the phosphonates trans-11e/cis-11e (90:10) (R = 4-NO 2 -C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) (EC 50 = 42.87 µM) and trans-11k/cis-11k (97:3) (R = Et) (EC 50 = 41.57 µM) were comparable to that of acyclovir (EC 50 = 39.69 µM). These derivatives showed similar EC 50 's for TK + and TK´VZV strains and therefore their potency against TK + VZV was approximately 50-fold lower compared to acyclovir.
Furthermore, compounds trans-11b/cis-11b (90:10) (R = C 6 H 5 -CH 2 ), trans-11c (R = 2-NO 2 -C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ), trans-11e/cis-11e (90:10) (R = 4-NO 2 -C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) and trans-11g (R = 3-F-C 6 H 4 -CH 2 ) showed some activity against human cytomegalovirus (EC 50 = 27-45 µM), although they were less active than ganciclovir and cidofovir used as the reference compounds ( Table 3) . None of the phosphonate derivatives here described showed activity against the other tested DNA and RNA viruses.
The 50% cytostatic inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ) causing a 50% decrease in cell proliferation was determined against murine leukemia L1210, human lymphocyte CEM, human cervix carcinoma HeLa and immortalized human dermal microvacsular endothelial cells (HMEC-1). Isoxazolidines trans-11a (R = H) and trans-11j (R = Me) did not inhibit cell proliferation at the highest tested concentration (i.e., 250 µM), whereas trans-11k/cis-11k (97:3) (R = Et) appeared slightly cytostatic towards the tested cell lines (IC 50 = 85-101 µM). On the other hand (Table 4 , entries b to i), compounds having benzyl substituents at N3 in the quinazolinone moiety showed lower IC 50 values (IC 50 = 21-102 µM) thereby indicating that installation of functionalized benzyl groups was profitable for inhibitory properties. Table 4 . Inhibitory effect of the tested compounds against the proliferation of murine leukemia (L1210), human T-lymphocyte (CEM), human cervix carcinoma (HeLa) and immortalized human dermal microvascular endothelial cells (HMEC-1).
To the solution of 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-one (13a, 1.00 mmol) in acetonitrile (15 mL) potassium carbonate (3.00 mmol) was added. After 15 min the respective benzyl bromide (1.10 mmol) was added and the reaction mixture was stirred under reflux for 4 h. A solvent was removed and the residue was extracted with water (3ˆ10 mL). An organic layer was dried (MgSO 4 ), concentrated and the crude product was purified on a silica gel column with a methylene chloride: hexane mixture (7:3, v/v) followed by crystallisation (chloroform-petroleum ether) to give pure quinazolinones 13b-e and 13g-i. 133.57, 128.60, 128.28, 128.25, 127.67, 126.60, 123.81, 123.61, 115.59, 68.32 (s, N-CH 2 ) . Anal. Calcd. for C 17 To the solution of 2-vinyl-3H-quinazolin-4-one (13a, 1.00 mmol) in acetonitrile (15 mL) potassium carbonate (3.00 mmol) was added. After 15 min. iodomethane (2.00 mmol) or iodoethane (1.10 mmol) was added and the reaction mixture was stirred at 60˝C for 5 h. The solvent was removed and a residue was extracted with water (3ˆ10 mL). Organic layer was dried (MgSO 4 ), concentrated and the crude product was purified on a silica gel column with methylene chloride:hexane mixture (7:3, v/v) followed by crystallization (chloroform : petroleum ether) to give pure quinazolinones 13j [35] or 13k.
3-Methyl-2-vinylquinazolin-4(3H)-one (13j). Amorphous solid, m.p. = 122˝C-124˝C (reference [35] m.p. = 123˝C-125˝C).
A solution of the nitrone 12 (1.0 mmol) and the respective vinyl quinazolinone (1.0 mmol) in toluene (2 mL) was stirred at 70˝C until the disappearance (TLC) of the starting nitrone. All volatiles were removed in vacuo and crude products were subjected to chromatography on silica gel columns with a chloroform/methanol (100:1, 50:1, 20:1, v/v) mixtures as eluents.
Diethyl trans-(2-methyl-5-(4-oxo-3,4-dihydroquinazolin-2-yl)isoxazolidin-3-yl)phosphonate (trans-11a). Yellowish oil; IR (film, cm´1) ν max : 3085, 2980, 2929, 2782, 1687, 1610, 1469, 1331, 1132, 1098, 1052 , 13 Diethyl trans-(2-methyl-5-(3-(3-nitrobenzyl)-4-oxo-3,4-dihydroquinazolin-2-yl)isoxazolidin-3-yl)-phosphonate (trans-11d). Data noted below correspond to a 92:8 mixture of trans-11d and cis-11d. A yellowish oil; IR (film, cm´1) ν max : 3070, 2982, 2930, 2910, 1620, 1574, 1531, 1497, 1415, 1298, 1103, 1025, 774 | 1,562 | The replication of what virus is strongly inhibited by 2-(4-hydroxybenzyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one (1)? | {
"answer_start": [
2689
],
"text": [
"tobacco mosaic virus"
]
} | 3,040 |
546 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What work has been carried out this study? | {
"answer_start": [
1035
],
"text": [
"A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. "
]
} | 3,617 |
547 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | How many confirmed cases were identified in February 2020? | {
"answer_start": [
2531
],
"text": [
" 25,000"
]
} | 3,618 |
548 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What was the case fatality rate? | {
"answer_start": [
2638
],
"text": [
" 2%"
]
} | 3,619 |
549 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | Who are the majority of cases? | {
"answer_start": [
2775
],
"text": [
"males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market "
]
} | 3,620 |
550 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are the symptoms at the onset? | {
"answer_start": [
2947
],
"text": [
"fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue."
]
} | 3,621 |
551 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What type of virus is 2019-nCOV? | {
"answer_start": [
3161
],
"text": [
"betacoronavirus"
]
} | 3,622 |
552 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What clade does it belong to? | {
"answer_start": [
3177
],
"text": [
" forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily "
]
} | 3,623 |
553 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What other betacoronaviruses are zoonotic in origin? | {
"answer_start": [
3267
],
"text": [
"The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)"
]
} | 3,624 |
554 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | How does the pathogenicity of 2019-nCOV compare with other viruses? | {
"answer_start": [
3552
],
"text": [
"Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%)"
]
} | 3,625 |
555 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | How does the transmissibility of 2019-nCOV compare with other viruses? | {
"answer_start": [
3703
],
"text": [
"2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1)"
]
} | 3,626 |
556 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | Which electronic databases were used for this study? | {
"answer_start": [
4516
],
"text": [
"PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library"
]
} | 3,627 |
557 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What was the purpose of the search? | {
"answer_start": [
4552
],
"text": [
" to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines."
]
} | 3,628 |
558 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What topics were searched for? | {
"answer_start": [
5573
],
"text": [
"randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. "
]
} | 3,629 |
559 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What studies were excluded? | {
"answer_start": [
6235
],
"text": [
" Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV"
]
} | 3,630 |
560 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What did the searches yield? | {
"answer_start": [
6375
],
"text": [
"A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles."
]
} | 3,631 |
561 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is the the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain? | {
"answer_start": [
6978
],
"text": [
"real time RT-PCR"
]
} | 3,632 |
562 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are roles of the period and type of specimens? | {
"answer_start": [
7413
],
"text": [
"It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms."
]
} | 3,633 |
563 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are some of the other diagnostic methods? | {
"answer_start": [
7770
],
"text": [
"reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes."
]
} | 3,634 |
564 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | How does RT-LAMP compare with other methods? | {
"answer_start": [
7942
],
"text": [
" RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient."
]
} | 3,635 |
565 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | How do RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR compare with other methods? | {
"answer_start": [
8186
],
"text": [
" have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV."
]
} | 3,636 |
566 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | Why is RT-PCR not the best method sometimes? | {
"answer_start": [
8432
],
"text": [
"high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity "
]
} | 3,637 |
567 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What did the comparison between the molecular test and serological test show? | {
"answer_start": [
8800
],
"text": [
" that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. "
]
} | 3,638 |
568 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What enhancements to the molecular tests were looked at? | {
"answer_start": [
8956
],
"text": [
"Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity "
]
} | 3,639 |
569 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is the threshold sensitivity of Real time PCR? | {
"answer_start": [
10010
],
"text": [
"10 genome equivalents per reaction"
]
} | 3,640 |
570 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | How is the reproducibility of real time PCR? | {
"answer_start": [
10052
],
"text": [
"has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%."
]
} | 3,641 |
571 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are potential vaccines based on? | {
"answer_start": [
10922
],
"text": [
"messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle)"
]
} | 3,642 |
572 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | Which kit is currently used in China? | {
"answer_start": [
11200
],
"text": [
" kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China"
]
} | 3,643 |
573 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | Why were only four studies included? | {
"answer_start": [
11532
],
"text": [
"Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models "
]
} | 3,644 |
574 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | Which four studies were included? | {
"answer_start": [
11692
],
"text": [
" Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines"
]
} | 3,645 |
575 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is te safety of the vaccines?
| {
"answer_start": [
12005
],
"text": [
" All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, "
]
} | 3,646 |
576 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What was the performance of the vaccine candidates? | {
"answer_start": [
12073
],
"text": [
"well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants"
]
} | 3,647 |
577 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | How many clinical trials are registered? | {
"answer_start": [
12796
],
"text": [
"nine"
]
} | 3,648 |
578 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is the status of the nine trials? | {
"answer_start": [
12966
],
"text": [
" five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients"
]
} | 3,649 |
579 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are the results on seroconversion? | {
"answer_start": [
13335
],
"text": [
" Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60."
]
} | 3,650 |
580 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What were the results on antibodies? | {
"answer_start": [
13511
],
"text": [
"Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study."
]
} | 3,651 |
581 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What were the T-cell responses? | {
"answer_start": [
13699
],
"text": [
" detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively."
]
} | 3,652 |
582 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What were the differences in immune responses? | {
"answer_start": [
13783
],
"text": [
"no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60"
]
} | 3,653 |
583 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is the observed benefit of the molecules? | {
"answer_start": [
13976
],
"text": [
"Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. "
]
} | 3,654 |
584 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is the ongoing randomized trial investigating? | {
"answer_start": [
15743
],
"text": [
"It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B."
]
} | 3,655 |
585 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are the many prospective and restrospective studies conducted on? | {
"answer_start": [
15917
],
"text": [
" usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage."
]
} | 3,656 |
586 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What was the result of the phase 1 trial of IgG immunoglobin? | {
"answer_start": [
16227
],
"text": [
"The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. "
]
} | 3,657 |
587 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What role rapid diagnostics plays? | {
"answer_start": [
16735
],
"text": [
"enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home"
]
} | 3,658 |
588 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What other measures rapid diagnostics facilitates? | {
"answer_start": [
17027
],
"text": [
"specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination "
]
} | 3,659 |
589 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are ways to perform laboratory diagnostics? | {
"answer_start": [
17267
],
"text": [
" (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles."
]
} | 3,660 |
590 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are key limtations of genetic detection? | {
"answer_start": [
17594
],
"text": [
"lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase."
]
} | 3,661 |
591 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is a key limitation of serological testing? | {
"answer_start": [
17837
],
"text": [
"the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses."
]
} | 3,662 |
592 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is the limitation in virus testing? | {
"answer_start": [
18142
],
"text": [
" the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. "
]
} | 3,663 |
593 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What was the result of the treatment? | {
"answer_start": [
18272
],
"text": [
"Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. "
]
} | 3,664 |
594 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What superiority did the treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment have compared with using control treatment alone? | {
"answer_start": [
18611
],
"text": [
"in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course"
]
} | 3,665 |
595 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What was a characteristic of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates? | {
"answer_start": [
19303
],
"text": [
"have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. "
]
} | 3,666 |
596 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | How do severe cases compare with mild cases? | {
"answer_start": [
19400
],
"text": [
"viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases"
]
} | 3,667 |
597 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What is the disadvantage of upper respiratory tract specimens? | {
"answer_start": [
19603
],
"text": [
"hey have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.\n"
]
} | 3,668 |
598 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | What are the existing practices in detecting genetic material of viruses? | {
"answer_start": [
19881
],
"text": [
"(a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . "
]
} | 3,669 |
599 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | 2,486 | Why are Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis? | {
"answer_start": [
20181
],
"text": [
"it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection "
]
} | 3,670 |
Subsets and Splits