Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
      • Neuroimmunology: To Sense and Protect
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Immunology
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
The Journal of Immunology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on Twitter
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on RSS

Coronavirus Receptors as Immune Modulators

Charan Kumar V. Devarakonda, Emily Meredith, Mallika Ghosh and Linda H. Shapiro
J Immunol March 1, 2021, 206 (5) 923-929; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2001062
Charan Kumar V. Devarakonda
Center for Vascular Biology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT 06030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Meredith
Center for Vascular Biology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT 06030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Emily Meredith
Mallika Ghosh
Center for Vascular Biology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT 06030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mallika Ghosh
Linda H. Shapiro
Center for Vascular Biology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT 06030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The Coronaviridae family includes the seven known human coronaviruses (CoV) that cause mild to moderate respiratory infections (HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1) as well as severe illness and death (MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2). Severe infections induce hyperinflammatory responses that are often intensified by host adaptive immune pathways to profoundly advance disease severity. Proinflammatory responses are triggered by CoV entry mediated by host cell surface receptors. Interestingly, five of the seven strains use three cell surface metallopeptidases (CD13, CD26, and ACE2) as receptors, whereas the others employ O-acetylated-sialic acid (a key feature of metallopeptidases) for entry. Why CoV evolved to use peptidases as their receptors is unknown, but the peptidase activities of the receptors are dispensable, suggesting the virus uses/benefits from other functions of these molecules. Indeed, these receptors participate in the immune modulatory pathways that contribute to the pathological hyperinflammatory response. This review will focus on the role of CoV receptors in modulating immune responses.

Introduction

The recent pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 infection, its pleiotropic and enigmatic presentation in patients of various ages and races, and the recurring waves of infection by less severe yet often lethal coronavirus (CoV) strains clearly illustrates the limitations of our knowledge regarding these viruses. How they so efficiently exploit the immune system and what determines severe, mild, or even asymptomatic disease outcomes among infected patients remain important outstanding questions and would benefit from comprehensive investigation. The CoV comprise a large family of enveloped RNA viruses that derive from a common ancestor, and because of the characteristically high mutation rate of RNA viruses, their progeny are quite diverse (1, 2). The resulting CoV are classified into four subgroups, namely α, β, γ, and δ. Seven of the combined α (HCoV-229E and HCoV-NL63) and β (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2) subgroup CoV infect humans. Human CoV produce respiratory infections ranging from mild to moderate to critical illness and death. MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 are the most virulent and can cause severe lower respiratory tract disease, whereas the other four remain in the nasopharyngeal tract and are responsible for 15% of common colds (3). According to the World Health Organization, MERS has a high fatality rate of ∼34.4% as of November 2019, with 858 fatalities across 27 countries, but its low human-to-human transmission limits widespread outbreaks (R0 = 0.45–0.98 in Saudi Arabia and R0 = 2.5–8.09 in early stages in South Korea but drops to R0 <1 in a later period or with intervention) (4). Similarly, SARS-CoV also has a high global fatality rate of ∼9.5%, with a low transmission rate (R0 = 2–4, dropping to <1 with control measures). Contrary to these two viruses, SARS-CoV-2 has a lower global mortality rate of ∼3.5–4% but a high reproductive number (R0 = 2.4–5.7) (Refs 5, 6, and M. S. Majumder and K. D. Mandl, manuscript posted on Ssrn, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3524675), making it highly contagious and pervasive and resulting in devastating death tolls.

CoV infections can eventually lead to an intense pathological inflammatory response that is accompanied by excessive activation of host innate immune mechanisms that further the damage. Viral entry is mediated by specific cell surface receptors that are recognized by the C-terminal receptor-binding domains of the distinctive CoV spike proteins (2, 7). The receptors for two of the viruses, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1, have not been identified but are known to employ the 9-O-acetylated-sialic acid modifications on glycoproteins as entry points (Table I) (8, 9). By contrast, the remaining five CoV use three cell surface metallopeptidases as receptors: CD13/ANPEP/APN (aminopeptidase N), CD26/DPP4 (dipeptidyl peptidase 4), and ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) (10–15). Internalized viral RNA binds to cytosolic, extracellular, and endosomal pattern recognition receptors that activate standard downstream inflammatory signaling cascades (16). However, patients with severe CoV infections often have a massive overproduction of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in extensive neutrophil and macrophage infiltration and with dampened adaptive immunity (fewer CD4+ and CD8+ T cells), culminating in increased cell and tissue death and, eventually, organ failure (17–28). Why CoV have evolved to use peptidases as their receptors is unknown, but the possibility that this has occurred by chance is highly unlikely (29). Interestingly, viral entry is unaffected by abrogating the receptors’ peptidase activities (10, 11, 13, 30), suggesting that these molecules contribute additional functions that may facilitate viral persistence. Indeed, independent of viral infection, these peptidases, as well as 9-O-acetylated sialic acid, have been implicated as multifunctional modulators of immune cells such as inflammatory cytokine production, inflammatory cell adhesion, phagocytosis, angiogenesis, and immune receptor trafficking (31–40). Viral activation of these pathways could clearly amplify the immune response, resulting in hyperinflammation and leading to pathology in the context of viral infection. In this review, we will focus on the potential role of the human CoV receptors CD13/APN, CD26/DPP4, and ACE2 in mediating immune responses observed in CoV infections.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table I. Receptors used by the seven different human CoV

Immune response in CoV infections

To better understand the role of CoV receptors in modulating immune responses, a brief overview of immune responses observed in CoV infections is necessary, specifically among the more severe MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 CoV. The common characteristic immunological features of these infections are as follows: elevated levels of proinflammatory chemokines and cytokines; increased neutrophil accumulation, leading to toxic neutrophil extracellular traps; and lymphopenia (fewer CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and B cells) (Fig. 1) (17–27). Patients with severe SARS-CoV had extensive myeloid infiltrates but lower levels of T cells (27), as did COVID-19 patients (41), whereas patients who successfully recovered from COVID-19 had reestablished T cell and B cell numbers close to normal levels (17). COVID-19 patients also elicit a strong humoral response as IgM, IgA, and IgG Abs against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein become detectable by 14 d after the onset of symptoms and persist much longer (41). High titers of neutralizing IgG Abs against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 13/14 convalescent patients (42). Interestingly, a study comparing unexposed and SARS-CoV-2–infected patients revealed that ∼40–60% of the unexposed individuals carried SARS-CoV-2–cross-reactive CD4+ T cells, presumably produced against common cold CoV, that could underlie the natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 seen in a subpopulation of individuals (43). Taken together, these findings emphasize the importance of the adaptive immune response in fighting SARS-CoV-2 infection in addition to suppressing the hyperactivated innate immune response. This may hold true for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections as well.

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

Common characteristic immunological features of CoV infections. Induction of immune response begins with the binding and internalization of CoV, leading to elevated levels of proinflammatory chemokines and cytokines, specifically IFN-γ, IL-6, IL-8, IP-10, TNF-α, MCP-1, IL-1β, and IL-17 among others. Increased chemokine and cytokine release causes neutrophil and macrophage accumulation as well as lymphopenia (CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and B cells).

Mechanistically, induction of these immune responses begins with the binding and internalization of CoV, which leads to activation of the NF-κB and NLRP3 inflammasome and cleavage of pro–IL-1β to yield active proinflammatory IL-1β that can then induce expression of IL-6 (44, 45). Release of inflammatory mediators by the infected cells as well as the subsequently recruited innate immune cells, including neutrophils and inflammatory macrophages, promotes the proinflammatory response. Increased serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6, are a common theme across CoV infections compared with healthy controls (25, 46, 47). The defensive antiviral IFN response against CoV infections is believed to be suppressed (lower levels of IFN-β); however, an increase in the expression of IFN-stimulated genes has also been observed (46, 48). This suggests that the antiviral IFN response could be dependent on the stage of the infection, whereas the proinflammatory status remains far more consistent (17–23). Plasma levels of IFN-α, IP-10, IL-6, and MCP-1 are highest in the acute phase (within 2 wk of the onset of symptoms) of moderate and severe MERS-CoV cases and diminish in the convalescent phase (20). Similarly, moderately infected SARS-CoV patients have higher plasma levels of IFN-γ, IL-1β, IL-8, IL-6, MCP-1, and IP-10 for 19 consecutive days after onset of disease than healthy individuals (19). The initially high cytokine levels drop to normal levels in convalescent patients (18) and in patients treated with methylprednisolone (standard care of treatment) (19). Successful antiviral therapy of COVID-19 patients also leads to reductions in the levels of proinflammatory cytokines and reestablishes CD4+ and CD8+ T cell numbers close to normal levels (17). Overall, increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines correlate with the viral load and track with the progression and regression of the disease, making them useful markers of pathology.

IL-6: master regulator

As is evident from the various studies, the cytokine storm consists of proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, IL-1β and TNF-α among others, and is associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (49). However, in the fight against COVID-19, IL-6 has taken the center stage, as it regulates a wide array of biological responses that can amplify respiratory distress (50–56). IL-6 is a unique cytokine in that it can switch between anti-inflammatory (classical signaling) and proinflammatory (trans-signaling) responses, depending upon the cleavage state of its receptor. IL-6 binding to membrane-bound IL-6Rα mediates anti-inflammatory responses, whereas binding its soluble receptor, sIL-6Rα, mediates proinflammatory responses and acts as a positive feedback signal to further generate IL-6 that is more potent than classical signaling (57). IL-6 knockout or neutralization with anti–IL-6 Ab leads to reduced inflammation and fibrosis (58). Therefore, targeting IL-6 presents a viable approach to mitigate the multitude of proinflammatory events resulting from CoV infection. Abs against IL-6, such as tocilizumab, have shown promising results in severe COVID-19 patients and are in clinical trials for various inflammatory disorders (59–61).

Role of CoV receptors in modulating the inflammatory response

The peptidase receptor molecules modulate IL-6 levels, both as bona fide CoV-binding receptor molecules and as participating accessory molecules in immune modulatory pathways to amplify or attenuate the immune response observed in CoV infections. Although direct binding of the individual CoV to their primary receptor molecules has been validated, there is ample evidence suggesting that these, as well as other host cell accessory proteins, also facilitate viral entry. Prior to virus binding to receptors, cleavage of CoV spike proteins by host cell proteases, designated “S protein priming,” is often required (62, 63). For example, cleavage of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by the membrane-bound serine protease TMPRSS2 is essential to enable virus binding to its ACE2 receptor (12). It has also been postulated that the high infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 may be due to its enhanced ability to exploit host cell factors, such as glycan modifications, to facilitate attachment (64, 65). Similarly, MERS-CoV replication is impaired in human monocyte-derived macrophages and dendritic cells regardless of CD26 expression, presumably because of a lack of accessory proteins involved in its internalization (66). Additionally, potential cross-reactivity with other receptors could provide additional modes of entry, as suggested by results from analyses predicting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-bound CD26 with high affinity, albeit lower than that to ACE2 (67). Therefore, SARS-CoV-2 could potentially use CD26 as a receptor, and its binding to either the CD26 or ACE2 receptor molecules could depend on differences in the affinity and/or on the relative abundance of CD26 and ACE2 on host cells. Although in vitro assays have shown that CD13 is not the receptor for SARS-CoV-2 (12), CD13 and CD26 expression is coregulated with ACE2 in various monkey and human tissues (68), suggesting that CD13 and/or CD26 could be potential accessory molecules contributing to viral entry in vivo. Therefore, we propose that, although individual CoV may not use CD13, CD26, and ACE2 as their primary receptors, these molecules could conceivably influence CoV uptake and overall infectivity, as well as amplify the ensuing immune response (Fig. 2). This thereby emphasizes the necessity of understanding the contribution of these receptors to disease progression and severity.

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Role of CoV receptors in modulating IL-6 levels. Evidence for the role of CoV receptors in modulating IL-6 levels is strong and is observed in various normal and disease models. (A) IL-6 production is enhanced by cross-linking CD13, whereas CD13 blocking Abs inhibit IL-6 production. Also, IL-6 and soluble IL-6R induce CD13 expression and activity, suggesting a possible positive feedback loop between CD13 and IL-6 expression. (B) Both the membrane-bound and soluble CD26 induce IL-6 expression that can be inhibited using CD26 inhibitors such as anagliptin and alogliptin. (C) Ang II, the substrate for ACE2 triggers the production of IL-6, whereas the product of ACE2 enzymatic activity, Ang–(1-7), opposes Ang II signaling and inhibits IL-6 production. Consequently, loss of ACE2 or treatment with an ACE2 inhibitor (MLN-4760) induces IL-6 production and, alternatively, activation of endogenous ACE2 with XNT–(1-[(2-dimethylamino) ethylamino]-4-(hydroxymethyl)-7-[(4-methylphenyl) sulfonyl oxy]-9H-xanthene-9-one) reduces IL-6 production.

CD13/APN/ANPEP, inflammation, and IL-6

Human CD13 is the prototypical member of the M1 family of zinc-binding metallopeptidases and is expressed on myeloid cells as well as in various tissues (69–71). CD13 is a 150-kDa type II single-pass transmembrane protein consisting of a short, highly conserved 7–9 aa cytoplasmic tail, a hydrophobic transmembrane region, and seven extracellular domains that contain both its zinc-coordinating and active sites. As a peptidase, CD13/APN participates in the metabolism of regulatory peptides by several cell types, including small intestinal and renal tubular epithelial cells, macrophages, granulocytes, and brain pericytes. However, the majority of CD13-mediated functions occur independently of its enzymatic activity, ranging from angiogenesis, monocyte/endothelial adhesion in inflammation, integrin recycling, receptor endocytosis, and maintenance of the stem cell niche (33–35, 72–76). Pertinent to this review, mAbs that blocked infection of newborn pigs with the porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus identified porcine CD13 as the receptor for this fatal intestinal pathogen (30). Subsequently, human CD13 was identified as the receptor for the human CoV HCoV-229E (10). Importantly, CD13’s enzymatic activity is not essential for receptor activity, and neither HCoV-229E binding nor infection is affected by various peptidase inhibitors (10, 77, 78).

Evidence for the interconnection between CD13, inflammation, and IL-6 in particular, is strong, and is observed in various normal and disease models (79–83). IL-6 and soluble IL-6R have been shown to induce CD13 expression and activity (80, 81), whereas anti-CD13 Ab inhibits IL-6 production (83), indicating a positive feedback loop between the expression of CD13 and IL-6. Indeed, Ab-mediated cross-linking of CD13 in mast cells leads to IL-6 production (82). Additionally, soluble CD13 is highly abundant in synovial fluid of rheumatoid arthritis patients, where it increases expression of proinflammatory cytokines (83–90). With regard to HCoV-229E infection, treatment of primary human nasal and tracheal epithelial cells with glycopyrronium/formoterol/budesonide, a mixture of drugs used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease caused by HCoV-229E infection, led to reduced CD13 expression, fewer acidic endosomes that are essential for the entry of HCoV-229E, as well as decreased production of inflammatory cytokines (79). This suggests that, in addition to preventing entry of HCoV-229E, this mixture may also help mitigate proinflammatory signaling events observed in other CoV infections.

CD26/DPP4, inflammation, and IL-6

CD26 is a type II cell membrane peptidase that is expressed in many tissues and hematopoietic cells (91). MERS-CoV uses CD26 as the receptor for viral entry, and a neutralizing Ab (Mersmab1) against the receptor-binding domain of the MERS-CoV spike protein blocks viral entry (92). Independent of viral infection, CD26 activity promotes inflammation, and inhibition of CD26 is beneficial in suppressing inflammation. CD26 is unique in the sense that its inhibition seems to have a dual effect on inflammation, as discussed below.

Soluble CD26, generated by cleavage of membrane-bound CD26, has been shown to upregulate the p-p65 NF-κB subunit and increase expression and secretion of IL-6, IL-8, and MCP-1 in human vascular smooth muscle cells, whereas CD26 inhibition and PAR2 silencing prevented this phenotype (93). Specific CD26 inhibition in different disease models has been shown to reduce expression of IL-6 and IL-1β and other proinflammatory cytokines, suggesting that CD26 intensifies inflammation (94). Therefore, it appears that inhibiting CD26 would suppress various inflammatory responses. However, contradictory evidence implicates CD26 as an inhibitor of lymphocyte chemotaxis. Young, diabetic Dpp4−/− mice on a high-fat diet have increased MCP-1 protein. Additionally, CD26 inhibition in older diabetic mice resulted in cardiac impairment and dysregulated expression of inflammatory and fibrosis genes (95). Mechanistically, CD26 cleaves and inactivates the proinflammatory chemokine CXCL10 to a nonfunctional truncated form, leading to decreased lymphocyte chemotaxis and NK cell infiltration, as demonstrated primarily in tumor models (96). This highlights the role of CD26 in mediating certain aspects of anti-inflammatory responses by suppressing NK and T cell infiltration. Therefore, although inhibiting CD26 seems logical, considering its role in IL-6 production, it could lead to increased immune cell infiltration that can potentially exacerbate tissue damage in the context of severe CoV infections. Clearly, a careful consideration of the dual role of CD26 in inflammation is needed in the context of CoV treatment.

ACE2, inflammation, and IL-6

ACE2, the receptor for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses is expressed in various tissues, including the small intestine, colon, breast, liver, testis, ovary, kidney, bladder, heart, thyroid, pancreas, lungs, adipose tissue, and adrenal gland (25, 68). This diverse expression profile may underlie the prevalence of widespread organ damage, including kidney and cardiovascular tissue, in severe SARS-CoV-2–infected patients (25, 97). ACE2 is a type I membrane metalloenzyme that cleaves angiotensin II (Ang II) to generate angiotensin 1-7 [Ang–(1-7)] (12, 13). Full-length Ang II binds to its receptor AT1 to trigger a strong proinflammatory response, including vasoconstriction, vascular permeability, and proinflammatory signaling. By contrast, its cleavage product, Ang–(1-7) produces antagonistic anti-inflammatory effects by acting as a competitive antagonist for AT1 (98) or by binding to and signaling through the Mas receptor (12, 13). AT1 receptor blockers, soluble ACE2, overexpressed ACE2, ACE2 inhibitors (MLN-4760) (99), Ace2 deletion, and exogenous Ang–(1-7) have all been shown to induce anti-inflammatory immune responses in various models of inflammatory disease (99–108). ACE2 expression is elevated in injured lung epithelial cells in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients and smokers (109, 110). Therefore, these individuals are potentially more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, although at this time, there is no conclusive evidence in humans to substantially prove this hypothesis. Interestingly, type 1 diabetic patients exhibit increased circulating (serum) ACE2 activity compared with healthy controls (111), and soluble human ACE2 can prevent viral entry by binding to SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, and SARS-CoV-2 (15, 112), suggesting that type 1 diabetic patients may be protected. Therefore, ACE2 acts as a crucial modulator of the anti-inflammatory immune response, and activation of ACE2 or use of exogenous Ang–(1-7) could potentially counter the proinflammatory response seen in severe COVID-19 patients. This is an important consideration because treatment strategies aimed at blocking ACE2 may also target its beneficial anti-inflammatory effects.

Conclusions

The massive inflammation characterized by the cytokine storm that develops upon infection by MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 clearly underlies the high morbidity and death toll that accompanies these viral infections. Although mitigating infection by blocking the initial entry of CoV into host cells is logically the gold standard to prevent new infection, once infected, addressing the question of why these particular viruses trigger such extreme responses may be an effective means of controlling the damage resulting from these infections. To this end, it is essential that we extensively explore the physiological capabilities of these immune modulatory peptidases that also function as viral receptors. A clear understanding of their potential contributions to the exaggerated immune activation in advanced infections may lead to strategies to alleviate morbidity and mortality of these and the inevitable pandemic CoV infections of the future.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

Figures were prepared using the Motifolio Illustration Toolkit.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by National Heart. Lung, and Blood Institute Grants R01-HL127449 and R01-HL125186.

  • Abbreviations used in this article:

    Ang–(1-7)
    angiotensin 1-7
    Ang II
    angiotensin II
    CoV
    coronavirus.

  • Received September 15, 2020.
  • Accepted November 4, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2021 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses
    . 2020. The species severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Microbiol. 5: 536–544.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Masters, P. S.
    2006. The molecular biology of coronaviruses. Adv. Virus Res. 66: 193–292.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Sariol, A.,
    2. S. Perlman
    . 2020. Lessons for COVID-19 immunity from other coronavirus infections. Immunity 53: 248–263.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Park, J. E.,
    2. S. Jung,
    3. A. Kim,
    4. J. E. Park
    . 2018. MERS transmission and risk factors: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 18: 574.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Sanche, S.,
    2. Y. T. Lin,
    3. C. Xu,
    4. E. Romero-Severson,
    5. N. Hengartner,
    6. R. Ke
    . 2020. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 26: 1470–1477.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. D’Arienzo, M.,
    2. A. Coniglio
    . 2020. Assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 basic reproduction number, R0, based on the early phase of COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Biosaf Health 2: 57–59.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Vabret, N.,
    2. Britton, G. J.,
    3. Gruber, C.,
    4. Hegde, S.,
    5. Kim, J.,
    6. Kuksin, M.,
    7. R. Levantovsky,
    8. Malle, L.,
    9. Moreira, A.,
    10. Park et al, The Sinai Immunology Review Project
    . 2020. Immunology of COVID-19: current state of the science. Immunity 52: 910–941.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Hulswit, R. J. G.,
    2. Y. Lang,
    3. M. J. G. Bakkers,
    4. W. Li,
    5. Z. Li,
    6. A. Schouten,
    7. B. Ophorst,
    8. F. J. M. van Kuppeveld,
    9. G. J. Boons,
    10. B. J. Bosch, et al
    . 2019. Human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 bind to 9-O-acetylated sialic acids via a conserved receptor-binding site in spike protein domain A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116: 2681–2690.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Huang, X.,
    2. W. Dong,
    3. A. Milewska,
    4. A. Golda,
    5. Y. Qi,
    6. Q. K. Zhu,
    7. W. A. Marasco,
    8. R. S. Baric,
    9. A. C. Sims,
    10. K. Pyrc, et al
    . 2015. Human coronavirus HKU1 spike protein uses O-acetylated sialic acid as an attachment receptor determinant and employs hemagglutinin-esterase protein as a receptor-destroying enzyme. J. Virol. 89: 7202–7213.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Yeager, C. L.,
    2. R. A. Ashmun,
    3. R. K. Williams,
    4. C. B. Cardellichio,
    5. L. H. Shapiro,
    6. A. T. Look,
    7. K. V. Holmes
    . 1992. Human aminopeptidase N is a receptor for human coronavirus 229E. Nature 357: 420–422.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Raj, V. S.,
    2. H. Mou,
    3. S. L. Smits,
    4. D. H. Dekkers,
    5. M. A. Müller,
    6. R. Dijkman,
    7. D. Muth,
    8. J. A. Demmers,
    9. A. Zaki,
    10. R. A. Fouchier, et al
    . 2013. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 is a functional receptor for the emerging human coronavirus-EMC. Nature 495: 251–254.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Hoffmann, M.,
    2. H. Kleine-Weber,
    3. S. Schroeder,
    4. N. Krüger,
    5. T. Herrler,
    6. S. Erichsen,
    7. T. S. Schiergens,
    8. G. Herrler,
    9. N. H. Wu,
    10. A. Nitsche, et al
    . 2020. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell 181: 271–280.e8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Li, W.,
    2. M. J. Moore,
    3. N. Vasilieva,
    4. J. Sui,
    5. S. K. Wong,
    6. M. A. Berne,
    7. M. Somasundaran,
    8. J. L. Sullivan,
    9. K. Luzuriaga,
    10. T. C. Greenough, et al
    . 2003. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is a functional receptor for the SARS coronavirus. Nature 426: 450–454.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Letko, M.,
    2. A. Marzi,
    3. V. Munster
    . 2020. Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS-CoV-2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses. Nat. Microbiol. 5: 562–569.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Hofmann, H.,
    2. K. Pyrc,
    3. L. van der Hoek,
    4. M. Geier,
    5. B. Berkhout,
    6. S. Pöhlmann
    . 2005. Human coronavirus NL63 employs the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus receptor for cellular entry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 7988–7993.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Catanzaro, M.,
    2. F. Fagiani,
    3. M. Racchi,
    4. E. Corsini,
    5. S. Govoni,
    6. C. Lanni
    . 2020. Immune response in COVID-19: addressing a pharmacological challenge by targeting pathways triggered by SARS-CoV-2. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 5: 84.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Ni, M.,
    2. F. B. Tian,
    3. D. D. Xiang,
    4. B. Yu
    . 2020. Characteristics of inflammatory factors and lymphocyte subsets in patients with severe COVID-19. J. Med. Virol. 92: 2600–2606.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Zhang, Y.,
    2. J. Li,
    3. Y. Zhan,
    4. L. Wu,
    5. X. Yu,
    6. W. Zhang,
    7. L. Ye,
    8. S. Xu,
    9. R. Sun,
    10. Y. Wang,
    11. J. Lou
    . 2004. Analysis of serum cytokines in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. Infect. Immun. 72: 4410–4415.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Wong, C. K.,
    2. C. W. Lam,
    3. A. K. Wu,
    4. W. K. Ip,
    5. N. L. Lee,
    6. I. H. Chan,
    7. L. C. Lit,
    8. D. S. Hui,
    9. M. H. Chan,
    10. S. S. Chung,
    11. J. J. Sung
    . 2004. Plasma inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in severe acute respiratory syndrome. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 136: 95–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Shin, H. S.,
    2. Y. Kim,
    3. G. Kim,
    4. J. Y. Lee,
    5. I. Jeong,
    6. J. S. Joh,
    7. H. Kim,
    8. E. Chang,
    9. S. Y. Sim,
    10. J. S. Park,
    11. D. G. Lim
    . 2019. Immune responses to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus during the acute and convalescent phases of human infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 68: 984–992.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Huang, K. J.,
    2. I. J. Su,
    3. M. Theron,
    4. Y. C. Wu,
    5. S. K. Lai,
    6. C. C. Liu,
    7. H. Y. Lei
    . 2005. An interferon-gamma-related cytokine storm in SARS patients. J. Med. Virol. 75: 185–194.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Alosaimi, B.,
    2. M. E. Hamed,
    3. A. Naeem,
    4. A. A. Alsharef,
    5. S. Y. AlQahtani,
    6. K. M. AlDosari,
    7. A. A. Alamri,
    8. K. Al-Eisa,
    9. T. Khojah,
    10. A. M. Assiri,
    11. M. A. Enani
    . 2020. MERS-CoV infection is associated with downregulation of genes encoding Th1 and Th2 cytokines/chemokines and elevated inflammatory innate immune response in the lower respiratory tract. Cytokine 126: 154895.
  20. ↵
    1. Liu, Y.,
    2. C. Zhang,
    3. F. Huang,
    4. Y. Yang,
    5. F. Wang,
    6. J. Yuan,
    7. Z. Zhang,
    8. Y. Qin,
    9. X. Li,
    10. D. Zhao, et al
    . 2020. Elevated plasma levels of selective cytokines in COVID-19 patients reflect viral load and lung injury. Natl. Sci. Rev. 7: 1003–1011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Mahallawi, W. H.,
    2. O. F. Khabour,
    3. Q. Zhang,
    4. H. M. Makhdoum,
    5. B. A. Suliman
    . 2018. MERS-CoV infection in humans is associated with a pro-inflammatory Th1 and Th17 cytokine profile. Cytokine 104: 8–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Chen, G.,
    2. D. Wu,
    3. W. Guo,
    4. Y. Cao,
    5. D. Huang,
    6. H. Wang,
    7. T. Wang,
    8. X. Zhang,
    9. H. Chen,
    10. H. Yu, et al
    . 2020. Clinical and immunological features of severe and moderate coronavirus disease 2019. J. Clin. Invest. 130: 2620–2629.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Liu, J.,
    2. S. Li,
    3. J. Liu,
    4. B. Liang,
    5. X. Wang,
    6. H. Wang,
    7. W. Li,
    8. Q. Tong,
    9. J. Yi,
    10. L. Zhao, et al
    . 2020. Longitudinal characteristics of lymphocyte responses and cytokine profiles in the peripheral blood of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. EBioMedicine 55: 102763.
  22. ↵
    1. Wong, R. S.,
    2. A. Wu,
    3. K. F. To,
    4. N. Lee,
    5. C. W. Lam,
    6. C. K. Wong,
    7. P. K. Chan,
    8. M. H. Ng,
    9. L. M. Yu,
    10. D. S. Hui, et al
    . 2003. Haematological manifestations in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome: retrospective analysis. BMJ 326: 1358–1362.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Lucas, C.,
    2. P. Wong,
    3. J. Klein,
    4. T. B. R. Castro,
    5. J. Silva,
    6. M. Sundaram,
    7. M. K. Ellingson,
    8. T. Mao,
    9. J. E. Oh,
    10. B. Israelow, et al, Yale IMPACT Team
    . 2020. Longitudinal analyses reveal immunological misfiring in severe COVID-19. Nature 584: 463–469.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Li, F.
    2015. Receptor recognition mechanisms of coronaviruses: a decade of structural studies. J. Virol. 89: 1954–1964.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Delmas, B.,
    2. J. Gelfi,
    3. R. L’Haridon,
    4. L. K. Vogel,
    5. H. Sjöström,
    6. O. Norén,
    7. H. Laude
    . 1992. Aminopeptidase N is a major receptor for the entero-pathogenic coronavirus TGEV. Nature 357: 417–420.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Schauer, R.,
    2. G. V. Srinivasan,
    3. D. Wipfler,
    4. B. Kniep,
    5. R. Schwartz-Albiez
    . 2011. O-Acetylated sialic acids and their role in immune defense. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 705: 525–548.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shi, W. X.,
    2. R. Chammas,
    3. N. M. Varki,
    4. L. Powell,
    5. A. Varki
    . 1996. Sialic acid 9-O-acetylation on murine erythroleukemia cells affects complement activation, binding to I-type lectins, and tissue homing. J. Biol. Chem. 271: 31526–31532.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Ghosh, M.,
    2. R. Lo,
    3. I. Ivic,
    4. B. Aguilera,
    5. V. Qendro,
    6. C. Devarakonda,
    7. L. H. Shapiro
    . 2019. CD13 tethers the IQGAP1-ARF6-EFA6 complex to the plasma membrane to promote ARF6 activation, β1 integrin recycling, and cell migration. Sci. Signal. 12: eaav5938.
    1. Ghosh, M.,
    2. J. Subramani,
    3. M. M. Rahman,
    4. L. H. Shapiro
    . 2015. CD13 restricts TLR4 endocytic signal transduction in inflammation. J. Immunol. 194: 4466–4476.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Subramani, J.,
    2. M. Ghosh,
    3. M. M. Rahman,
    4. L. A. Caromile,
    5. C. Gerber,
    6. K. Rezaul,
    7. D. K. Han,
    8. L. H. Shapiro
    . 2013. Tyrosine phosphorylation of CD13 regulates inflammatory cell-cell adhesion and monocyte trafficking. J. Immunol. 191: 3905–3912.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Ikushima, H.,
    2. Y. Munakata,
    3. S. Iwata,
    4. K. Ohnuma,
    5. S. Kobayashi,
    6. N. H. Dang,
    7. C. Morimoto
    . 2002. Soluble CD26/dipeptidyl peptidase IV enhances transendothelial migration via its interaction with mannose 6-phosphate/insulin-like growth factor II receptor. Cell. Immunol. 215: 106–110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bank, U.,
    2. A. Heimburg,
    3. M. Helmuth,
    4. S. Stefin,
    5. U. Lendeckel,
    6. D. Reinhold,
    7. J. Faust,
    8. P. Fuchs,
    9. B. Sens,
    10. K. Neubert, et al
    . 2006. Triggering endogenous immunosuppressive mechanisms by combined targeting of Dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPIV/CD26) and Aminopeptidase N (APN/ CD13)--a novel approach for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Int. Immunopharmacol. 6: 1925–1934.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Baumann, A. M.,
    2. M. J. Bakkers,
    3. F. F. Buettner,
    4. M. Hartmann,
    5. M. Grove,
    6. M. A. Langereis,
    7. R. J. de Groot,
    8. M. Mühlenhoff
    . 2015. 9-O-Acetylation of sialic acids is catalysed by CASD1 via a covalent acetyl-enzyme intermediate. Nat. Commun. 6: 7673.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bernstein, K. E.,
    2. Z. Khan,
    3. J. F. Giani,
    4. D. Y. Cao,
    5. E. A. Bernstein,
    6. X. Z. Shen
    . 2018. Angiotensin-converting enzyme in innate and adaptive immunity. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 14: 325–336.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Cao, D. Y.,
    2. S. Saito,
    3. L. C. Veiras,
    4. D. Okwan-Duodu,
    5. E. A. Bernstein,
    6. J. F. Giani,
    7. K. E. Bernstein,
    8. Z. Khan
    . 2020. Role of angiotensin-converting enzyme in myeloid cell immune responses. Cell. Mol. Biol. Lett. 25: 31.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Guo, L.,
    2. L. Ren,
    3. S. Yang,
    4. M. Xiao,
    5. D. Chang,
    6. F. Yang,
    7. C. S. Dela Cruz,
    8. Y. Wang,
    9. C. Wu,
    10. Y. Xiao, et al
    . 2020. Profiling early humoral response to diagnose novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Clin. Infect. Dis. 71: 778–785.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Ni, L.,
    2. F. Ye,
    3. M. L. Cheng,
    4. Y. Feng,
    5. Y. Q. Deng,
    6. H. Zhao,
    7. P. Wei,
    8. J. Ge,
    9. M. Gou,
    10. X. Li, et al
    . 2020. Detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in COVID-19 convalescent individuals. Immunity 52: 971–977.e3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Grifoni, A.,
    2. D. Weiskopf,
    3. S. I. Ramirez,
    4. J. Mateus,
    5. J. M. Dan,
    6. C. R. Moderbacher,
    7. S. A. Rawlings,
    8. A. Sutherland,
    9. L. Premkumar,
    10. R. S. Jadi, et al
    . 2020. Targets of T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in humans with COVID-19 disease and unexposed individuals. Cell 181: 1489–1501.e15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Siu, K. L.,
    2. K. S. Yuen,
    3. C. Castaño-Rodriguez,
    4. Z. W. Ye,
    5. M. L. Yeung,
    6. S. Y. Fung,
    7. S. Yuan,
    8. C. P. Chan,
    9. K. Y. Yuen,
    10. L. Enjuanes,
    11. D. Y. Jin
    . 2019. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus ORF3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome by promoting TRAF3-dependent ubiquitination of ASC. FASEB J. 33: 8865–8877.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Cahill, C. M.,
    2. J. T. Rogers
    . 2008. Interleukin (IL) 1beta induction of IL-6 is mediated by a novel phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-dependent AKT/IkappaB kinase alpha pathway targeting activator protein-1. J. Biol. Chem. 283: 25900–25912.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Blanco-Melo, D.,
    2. B. E. Nilsson-Payant,
    3. W. C. Liu,
    4. S. Uhl,
    5. D. Hoagland,
    6. R. Møller,
    7. T. X. Jordan,
    8. K. Oishi,
    9. M. Panis,
    10. D. Sachs, et al
    . 2020. Imbalanced host response to SARS-CoV-2 drives development of COVID-19. Cell 181: 1036–1045.e9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Wang, J.,
    2. M. Jiang,
    3. X. Chen,
    4. L. J. Montaner
    . 2020. Cytokine storm and leukocyte changes in mild versus severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: review of 3939 COVID-19 patients in China and emerging pathogenesis and therapy concepts. J. Leukoc. Biol. 108: 17–41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Zhou, Z.,
    2. L. Ren,
    3. L. Zhang,
    4. J. Zhong,
    5. Y. Xiao,
    6. Z. Jia,
    7. L. Guo,
    8. J. Yang,
    9. C. Wang,
    10. S. Jiang, et al
    . 2020. Heightened innate immune responses in the respiratory tract of COVID-19 patients. Cell Host Microbe 27: 883–890.e2.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Aisiku, I. P.,
    2. J. M. Yamal,
    3. P. Doshi,
    4. J. S. Benoit,
    5. S. Gopinath,
    6. J. C. Goodman,
    7. C. S. Robertson
    . 2016. Plasma cytokines IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 are associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Crit. Care 20: 288.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Wrighting, D. M.,
    2. N. C. Andrews
    . 2006. Interleukin-6 induces hepcidin expression through STAT3. Blood 108: 3204–3209.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Heinrich, P. C.,
    2. J. V. Castell,
    3. T. Andus
    . 1990. Interleukin-6 and the acute phase response. Biochem. J. 265: 621–636.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Chomarat, P.,
    2. J. Banchereau,
    3. J. Davoust,
    4. A. K. Palucka
    . 2000. IL-6 switches the differentiation of monocytes from dendritic cells to macrophages. Nat. Immunol. 1: 510–514.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rincón, M.,
    2. J. Anguita,
    3. T. Nakamura,
    4. E. Fikrig,
    5. R. A. Flavell
    . 1997. Interleukin (IL)-6 directs the differentiation of IL-4-producing CD4+ T cells. J. Exp. Med. 185: 461–469.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Jourdan, M.,
    2. M. Cren,
    3. N. Robert,
    4. K. Bolloré,
    5. T. Fest,
    6. C. Duperray,
    7. F. Guilloton,
    8. D. Hose,
    9. K. Tarte,
    10. B. Klein
    . 2014. IL-6 supports the generation of human long-lived plasma cells in combination with either APRIL or stromal cell-soluble factors. Leukemia 28: 1647–1656.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chen, X.,
    2. R. Das,
    3. R. Komorowski,
    4. A. Beres,
    5. M. J. Hessner,
    6. M. Mihara,
    7. W. R. Drobyski
    . 2009. Blockade of interleukin-6 signaling augments regulatory T-cell reconstitution and attenuates the severity of graft-versus-host disease. Blood 114: 891–900.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Alsaffar, H.,
    2. N. Martino,
    3. J. P. Garrett,
    4. A. P. Adam
    . 2018. Interleukin-6 promotes a sustained loss of endothelial barrier function via Janus kinase-mediated STAT3 phosphorylation and de novo protein synthesis. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 314: C589–C602.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Greenhill, C. J.,
    2. S. Rose-John,
    3. R. Lissilaa,
    4. W. Ferlin,
    5. M. Ernst,
    6. P. J. Hertzog,
    7. A. Mansell,
    8. B. J. Jenkins
    . 2011. IL-6 trans-signaling modulates TLR4-dependent inflammatory responses via STAT3. J. Immunol. 186: 1199–1208.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Pedroza, M.,
    2. D. J. Schneider,
    3. H. Karmouty-Quintana,
    4. J. Coote,
    5. S. Shaw,
    6. R. Corrigan,
    7. J. G. Molina,
    8. J. L. Alcorn,
    9. D. Galas,
    10. R. Gelinas,
    11. M. R. Blackburn
    . 2011. Interleukin-6 contributes to inflammation and remodeling in a model of adenosine mediated lung injury. PLoS One 6: e22667.
  43. ↵
    1. Xu, X.,
    2. M. Han,
    3. T. Li,
    4. W. Sun,
    5. D. Wang,
    6. B. Fu,
    7. Y. Zhou,
    8. X. Zheng,
    9. Y. Yang,
    10. X. Li, et al
    . 2020. Effective treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with tocilizumab. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117: 10970–10975.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Guaraldi, G.,
    2. M. Meschiari,
    3. A. Cozzi-Lepri,
    4. J. Milic,
    5. R. Tonelli,
    6. M. Menozzi,
    7. E. Franceschini,
    8. G. Cuomo,
    9. G. Orlando,
    10. V. Borghi, et al
    . 2020. Tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2: e474–e484.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Tanaka, T.,
    2. M. Narazaki,
    3. T. Kishimoto
    . 2014. IL-6 in inflammation, immunity, and disease. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6: a016295.
  45. ↵
    1. Menachery, V. D.,
    2. K. H. Dinnon III.,
    3. B. L. Yount Jr..,
    4. E. T. McAnarney,
    5. L. E. Gralinski,
    6. A. Hale,
    7. R. L. Graham,
    8. T. Scobey,
    9. S. J. Anthony,
    10. L. Wang, et al
    . 2020. Trypsin treatment unlocks barrier for zoonotic bat coronavirus infection. J. Virol. 94: e01774-19.
  46. ↵
    1. Yang, Y.,
    2. L. Du,
    3. C. Liu,
    4. L. Wang,
    5. C. Ma,
    6. J. Tang,
    7. R. S. Baric,
    8. S. Jiang,
    9. F. Li
    . 2014. Receptor usage and cell entry of bat coronavirus HKU4 provide insight into bat-to-human transmission of MERS coronavirus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111: 12516–12521.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Li, W.,
    2. R. J. G. Hulswit,
    3. I. Widjaja,
    4. V. S. Raj,
    5. R. McBride,
    6. W. Peng,
    7. W. Widagdo,
    8. M. A. Tortorici,
    9. B. van Dieren,
    10. Y. Lang, et al
    . 2017. Identification of sialic acid-binding function for the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike glycoprotein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114: E8508–E8517.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Park, S. S.
    2019. Post-glycosylation modification of sialic acid and its role in virus pathogenesis. Vaccines (Basel) 7: 171.
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Tynell, J.,
    2. V. Westenius,
    3. E. Rönkkö,
    4. V. J. Munster,
    5. K. Melén,
    6. P. Österlund,
    7. I. Julkunen
    . 2016. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus shows poor replication but significant induction of antiviral responses in human monocyte-derived macrophages and dendritic cells. J. Gen. Virol. 97: 344–355.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Li, Y.,
    2. Z. Zhang,
    3. L. Yang,
    4. X. Lian,
    5. Y. Xie,
    6. S. Li,
    7. S. Xin,
    8. P. Cao,
    9. J. Lu
    . 2020. The MERS-CoV receptor DPP4 as a candidate binding target of the SARS-CoV-2 spike. [Published erratum appears in 2020 iScience 23: 101400.] iScience 23: 101160.
  51. ↵
    1. Qi, F.,
    2. S. Qian,
    3. S. Zhang,
    4. Z. Zhang
    . 2020. Single cell RNA sequencing of 13 human tissues identify cell types and receptors of human coronaviruses. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 526: 135–140.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Look, A. T.,
    2. R. A. Ashmun,
    3. L. H. Shapiro,
    4. S. C. Peiper
    . 1989. Human myeloid plasma membrane glycoprotein CD13 (gp150) is identical to aminopeptidase N. J. Clin. Invest. 83: 1299–1307.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Winnicka, B.,
    2. C. O’Conor,
    3. W. Schacke,
    4. K. Vernier,
    5. C. L. Grant,
    6. F. H. Fenteany,
    7. F. E. Pereira,
    8. B. Liang,
    9. A. Kaur,
    10. R. Zhao, et al
    . 2010. CD13 is dispensable for normal hematopoiesis and myeloid cell functions in the mouse. J. Leukoc. Biol. 88: 347–359.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Di Matteo, P.,
    2. G. L. Arrigoni,
    3. L. Alberici,
    4. A. Corti,
    5. C. Gallo-Stampino,
    6. C. Traversari,
    7. C. Doglioni,
    8. G. P. Rizzardi
    . 2011. Enhanced expression of CD13 in vessels of inflammatory and neoplastic tissues. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 59: 47–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Bhagwat, S. V.,
    2. J. Lahdenranta,
    3. R. Giordano,
    4. W. Arap,
    5. R. Pasqualini,
    6. L. H. Shapiro
    . 2001. CD13/APN is activated by angiogenic signals and is essential for capillary tube formation. Blood 97: 652–659.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Devarakonda, C. V.,
    2. F. E. Pereira,
    3. J. D. Smith,
    4. L. H. Shapiro,
    5. M. Ghosh
    . 2019. CD13 deficiency leads to increased oxidative stress and larger atherosclerotic lesions. Atherosclerosis 287: 70–80.
    OpenUrl
    1. Ghosh, M.,
    2. C. Gerber,
    3. M. M. Rahman,
    4. K. M. Vernier,
    5. F. E. Pereira,
    6. J. Subramani,
    7. L. A. Caromile,
    8. L. H. Shapiro
    . 2014. Molecular mechanisms regulating CD13-mediated adhesion. Immunology 142: 636–647.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ghosh, M.,
    2. B. McAuliffe,
    3. J. Subramani,
    4. S. Basu,
    5. L. H. Shapiro
    . 2012. CD13 regulates dendritic cell cross-presentation and T cell responses by inhibiting receptor-mediated antigen uptake. J. Immunol. 188: 5489–5499.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Rahman, M. M.,
    2. M. Ghosh,
    3. J. Subramani,
    4. G. H. Fong,
    5. M. E. Carlson,
    6. L. H. Shapiro
    . 2014. CD13 regulates anchorage and differentiation of the skeletal muscle satellite stem cell population in ischemic injury. Stem Cells 32: 1564–1577.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Wentworth, D. E.,
    2. D. B. Tresnan,
    3. B. C. Turner,
    4. I. R. Lerman,
    5. B. Bullis,
    6. E. M. Hemmila,
    7. R. Levis,
    8. L. H. Shapiro,
    9. K. V. Holmes
    . 2005. Cells of human aminopeptidase N (CD13) transgenic mice are infected by human coronavirus-229E in vitro, but not in vivo. Virology 335: 185–197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Lassnig, C.,
    2. C. M. Sanchez,
    3. M. Egerbacher,
    4. I. Walter,
    5. S. Majer,
    6. T. Kolbe,
    7. P. Pallares,
    8. L. Enjuanes,
    9. M. Müller
    . 2005. Development of a transgenic mouse model susceptible to human coronavirus 229E. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 8275–8280.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Yamaya, M.,
    2. H. Nishimura,
    3. X. Deng,
    4. M. Sugawara,
    5. O. Watanabe,
    6. K. Nomura,
    7. Y. Shimotai,
    8. H. Momma,
    9. M. Ichinose,
    10. T. Kawase
    . 2020. Inhibitory effects of glycopyrronium, formoterol, and budesonide on coronavirus HCoV-229E replication and cytokine production by primary cultures of human nasal and tracheal epithelial cells. Respir. Investig. 58: 155–168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Liang, W.,
    2. B. Gao,
    3. G. Xu,
    4. D. Weng,
    5. M. Xie,
    6. Y. Qian
    . 2014. Possible contribution of aminopeptidase N (APN/CD13) to migration and invasion of human osteosarcoma cell lines. Int. J. Oncol. 45: 2475–2485.
    OpenUrl
  60. ↵
    1. Kido, A.,
    2. S. Krueger,
    3. C. Haeckel,
    4. A. Roessner
    . 1999. Possible contribution of aminopeptidase N (APN/CD13) to invasive potential enhanced by interleukin-6 and soluble interleukin-6 receptor in human osteosarcoma cell lines. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 17: 857–863.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Zotz, J. S.,
    2. F. Wölbing,
    3. C. Lassnig,
    4. M. Kauffmann,
    5. U. Schulte,
    6. A. Kolb,
    7. B. Whitelaw,
    8. M. Müller,
    9. T. Biedermann,
    10. M. Huber
    . 2016. CD13/aminopeptidase N is a negative regulator of mast cell activation. FASEB J. 30: 2225–2235.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Chomarat, P.,
    2. M. C. Rissoan,
    3. J. J. Pin,
    4. J. Banchereau,
    5. P. Miossec
    . 1995. Contribution of IL-1, CD14, and CD13 in the increased IL-6 production induced by in vitro monocyte-synoviocyte interactions. J. Immunol. 155: 3645–3652.
    OpenUrlAbstract
    1. Du, Y.,
    2. C. Lu,
    3. R. L. Morgan,
    4. W. A. Stinson,
    5. P. L. Campbell,
    6. E. Cealey,
    7. W. Fu,
    8. N. J. Lepore,
    9. J. L. Hervoso,
    10. H. Cui, et al
    . 2019. Angiogenic and arthritogenic properties of the soluble form of CD13. J. Immunol. 203: 360–369.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Morgan, R.,
    2. J. Endres,
    3. N. Behbahani-Nejad,
    4. K. Phillips,
    5. J. H. Ruth,
    6. S. C. Friday,
    7. G. Edhayan,
    8. T. Lanigan,
    9. A. Urquhart,
    10. K. C. Chung,
    11. D. A. Fox
    . 2015. Expression and function of aminopeptidase N/CD13 produced by fibroblast-like synoviocytes in rheumatoid arthritis: role of CD13 in chemotaxis of cytokine-activated T cells independent of enzymatic activity. Arthritis Rheumatol. 67: 74–85.
    OpenUrl
    1. Morgan, R. L.,
    2. N. Behbahani-Nejad,
    3. J. Endres,
    4. M. A. Amin,
    5. N. J. Lepore,
    6. Y. Du,
    7. A. Urquhart,
    8. K. C. Chung,
    9. D. A. Fox
    . 2016. Localization, shedding, regulation and function of aminopeptidase N/CD13 on fibroblast like synoviocytes. PLoS One 11: e0162008.
    1. Yamasaki, S. C.,
    2. S. Murari-do-Nascimento,
    3. P. F. Silveira
    . 2012. Neutral aminopeptidase and dipeptidyl peptidase IV in the development of collagen II-induced arthritis. Regul. Pept. 173: 47–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Riemann, D.,
    2. A. Kehlen,
    3. K. Thiele,
    4. M. Löhn,
    5. J. Langner
    . 1997. Co-incubation of lymphocytes with fibroblast-like synoviocytes and other cell types can induce lymphocytic surface expression of aminopeptidase N/CD13. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 421: 75–79.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Riemann, D.,
    2. A. Kehlen,
    3. K. Thiele,
    4. M. Löhn,
    5. J. Langner
    . 1997. Induction of aminopeptidase N/CD13 on human lymphocytes after adhesion to fibroblast-like synoviocytes, endothelial cells, epithelial cells, and monocytes/macrophages. J. Immunol. 158: 3425–3432.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  63. ↵
    1. Riemann, D.,
    2. J. Röntsch,
    3. B. Hause,
    4. J. Langner,
    5. A. Kehlen
    . 2000. Cell-cell contact between lymphocytes and fibroblast-like synoviocytes induces lymphocytic expression of aminopeptidase N/CD13 and results in lymphocytic activation. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 477: 57–66.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Lambeir, A. M.,
    2. C. Durinx,
    3. S. Scharpé,
    4. I. De Meester
    . 2003. Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV from bench to bedside: an update on structural properties, functions, and clinical aspects of the enzyme DPP IV. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 40: 209–294.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Du, L.,
    2. G. Zhao,
    3. Y. Yang,
    4. H. Qiu,
    5. L. Wang,
    6. Z. Kou,
    7. X. Tao,
    8. H. Yu,
    9. S. Sun,
    10. C. T. Tseng, et al
    . 2014. A conformation-dependent neutralizing monoclonal antibody specifically targeting receptor-binding domain in Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike protein. J. Virol. 88: 7045–7053.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Wronkowitz, N.,
    2. S. W. Görgens,
    3. T. Romacho,
    4. L. A. Villalobos,
    5. C. F. Sánchez-Ferrer,
    6. C. Peiró,
    7. H. Sell,
    8. J. Eckel
    . 2014. Soluble DPP4 induces inflammation and proliferation of human smooth muscle cells via protease-activated receptor 2. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1842: 1613–1621.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Ta, N. N.,
    2. C. A. Schuyler,
    3. Y. Li,
    4. M. F. Lopes-Virella,
    5. Y. Huang
    . 2011. DPP-4 (CD26) inhibitor alogliptin inhibits atherosclerosis in diabetic apolipoprotein E-deficient mice. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 58: 157–166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Mulvihill, E. E.,
    2. E. M. Varin,
    3. J. R. Ussher,
    4. J. E. Campbell,
    5. K. W. Bang,
    6. T. Abdullah,
    7. L. L. Baggio,
    8. D. J. Drucker
    . 2016. Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 impairs ventricular function and promotes cardiac fibrosis in high fat-fed diabetic mice. Diabetes 65: 742–754.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Nishina, S.,
    2. A. Yamauchi,
    3. T. Kawaguchi,
    4. K. Kaku,
    5. M. Goto,
    6. K. Sasaki,
    7. Y. Hara,
    8. Y. Tomiyama,
    9. F. Kuribayashi,
    10. T. Torimura,
    11. K. Hino
    . 2018. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors reduce hepatocellular carcinoma by activating lymphocyte chemotaxis in mice. Cell. Mol. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 7: 115–134.
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Su, H.,
    2. M. Yang,
    3. C. Wan,
    4. L. X. Yi,
    5. F. Tang,
    6. H. Y. Zhu,
    7. F. Yi,
    8. H. C. Yang,
    9. A. B. Fogo,
    10. X. Nie,
    11. C. Zhang
    . 2020. Renal histopathological analysis of 26 postmortem findings of patients with COVID-19 in China. Kidney Int. 98: 219–227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Galandrin, S.,
    2. C. Denis,
    3. C. Boularan,
    4. J. Marie,
    5. C. M’Kadmi,
    6. C. Pilette,
    7. C. Dubroca,
    8. Y. Nicaise,
    9. M. H. Seguelas,
    10. D. N’Guyen, et al
    . 2016. Cardioprotective angiotensin-(1-7) peptide acts as a natural-biased ligand at the angiotensin II type 1 receptor. Hypertension 68: 1365–1374.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Thomas, M. C.,
    2. R. J. Pickering,
    3. D. Tsorotes,
    4. A. Koitka,
    5. K. Sheehy,
    6. S. Bernardi,
    7. B. Toffoli,
    8. T. P. Nguyen-Huu,
    9. G. A. Head,
    10. Y. Fu, et al
    . 2010. Genetic Ace2 deficiency accentuates vascular inflammation and atherosclerosis in the ApoE knockout mouse. Circ. Res. 107: 888–897.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Li, Y.,
    2. Z. Zeng,
    3. Y. Cao,
    4. Y. Liu,
    5. F. Ping,
    6. M. Liang,
    7. Y. Xue,
    8. C. Xi,
    9. M. Zhou,
    10. W. Jiang
    . 2016. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 prevents lipopolysaccharide-induced rat acute lung injury via suppressing the ERK1/2 and NF-κB signaling pathways. Sci. Rep. 6: 27911.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. He, H.,
    2. L. Liu,
    3. Q. Chen,
    4. A. Liu,
    5. S. Cai,
    6. Y. Yang,
    7. X. Lu,
    8. H. Qiu
    . 2015. Mesenchymal stem cells overexpressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 rescue lipopolysaccharide-induced lung injury. Cell Transplant. 24: 1699–1715.
    OpenUrl
    1. He, H. L.,
    2. L. Liu,
    3. Q. H. Chen,
    4. S. X. Cai,
    5. J. B. Han,
    6. S. L. Hu,
    7. P. Chun,
    8. Y. Yang,
    9. F. M. Guo,
    10. Y. Z. Huang,
    11. H. B. Qiu
    . 2015. MSCs modified with ACE2 restore endothelial function following LPS challenge by inhibiting the activation of RAS. J. Cell. Physiol. 230: 691–701.
    OpenUrl
    1. Jin, H. Y.,
    2. B. Song,
    3. G. Y. Oudit,
    4. S. T. Davidge,
    5. H. M. Yu,
    6. Y. Y. Jiang,
    7. P. J. Gao,
    8. D. L. Zhu,
    9. G. Ning,
    10. Z. Kassiri, et al
    . 2012. ACE2 deficiency enhances angiotensin II-mediated aortic profilin-1 expression, inflammation and peroxynitrite production. PLoS One 7: e38502.
    1. Skurk, T.,
    2. V. van Harmelen,
    3. H. Hauner
    . 2004. Angiotensin II stimulates the release of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 from cultured human adipocytes by activation of NF-kappaB. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 24: 1199–1203.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Funakoshi, Y.,
    2. T. Ichiki,
    3. K. Ito,
    4. A. Takeshita
    . 1999. Induction of interleukin-6 expression by angiotensin II in rat vascular smooth muscle cells. Hypertension 34: 118–125.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Wang, L.,
    2. J. Liang,
    3. P. S. Leung
    . 2015. The ACE2/Ang-(1-7)/Mas axis regulates the development of pancreatic endocrine cells in mouse embryos. PLoS One 10: e0128216.
    1. Shoemaker, R.,
    2. L. R. Tannock,
    3. W. Su,
    4. M. Gong,
    5. S. B. Gurley,
    6. S. E. Thatcher,
    7. F. Yiannikouris,
    8. C. M. Ensor,
    9. L. A. Cassis
    . 2019. Adipocyte deficiency of ACE2 increases systolic blood pressures of obese female C57BL/6 mice. Biol. Sex Differ. 10: 45.
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Singh, G.,
    2. J. Imai,
    3. K. V. Clemons,
    4. D. A. Stevens
    . 2005. Efficacy of caspofungin against central nervous system Aspergillus fumigatus infection in mice determined by TaqMan PCR and CFU methods. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49: 1369–1376.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Milne, S.,
    2. D. D. Sin
    . 2020. Biomarkers in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the gateway to precision medicine. Clin. Chest Med. 41: 383–394.
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Leung, J. M.,
    2. C. X. Yang,
    3. A. Tam,
    4. T. Shaipanich,
    5. T. L. Hackett,
    6. G. K. Singhera,
    7. D. R. Dorscheid,
    8. D. D. Sin
    . 2020. ACE-2 expression in the small airway epithelia of smokers and COPD patients: implications for COVID-19. Eur. Respir. J. 55: 2000688.
  76. ↵
    1. Soro-Paavonen, A.,
    2. D. Gordin,
    3. C. Forsblom,
    4. M. Rosengard-Barlund,
    5. J. Waden,
    6. L. Thorn,
    7. N. Sandholm,
    8. M. C. Thomas,
    9. P. H. Groop, FinnDiane Study Group
    . 2012. Circulating ACE2 activity is increased in patients with type 1 diabetes and vascular complications. J. Hypertens. 30: 375–383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Monteil, V.,
    2. H. Kwon,
    3. P. Prado,
    4. A. Hagelkrüys,
    5. R. A. Wimmer,
    6. M. Stahl,
    7. A. Leopoldi,
    8. E. Garreta,
    9. C. Hurtado Del Pozo,
    10. F. Prosper, et al
    . 2020. Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 infections in engineered human tissues using clinical-grade soluble human ACE2. Cell 181: 905–913.e7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology: 206 (5)
The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 206, Issue 5
1 Mar 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Immunology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Coronavirus Receptors as Immune Modulators
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Immunology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Immunology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Coronavirus Receptors as Immune Modulators
Charan Kumar V. Devarakonda, Emily Meredith, Mallika Ghosh, Linda H. Shapiro
The Journal of Immunology March 1, 2021, 206 (5) 923-929; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.2001062

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Coronavirus Receptors as Immune Modulators
Charan Kumar V. Devarakonda, Emily Meredith, Mallika Ghosh, Linda H. Shapiro
The Journal of Immunology March 1, 2021, 206 (5) 923-929; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.2001062
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Systems Approaches to Unravel T Cell Function and Therapeutic Potential in Autoimmune Disease
  • The Ugly Duckling Turned to Swan: A Change in Perception of Bystander-Activated Memory CD8 T Cells
Show more BRIEF REVIEWS

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Next in The JI
  • Archive
  • Brief Reviews
  • Pillars of Immunology
  • Translating Immunology

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Instructions for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Journal Policies
  • Editors

General Information

  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Rights and Permissions
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Public Access
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • ImmunoCasts
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2021 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

Print ISSN 0022-1767        Online ISSN 1550-6606