The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 respiratory disease, has infected over 2.3 million people, killed over 160,000, and caused worldwide social and economic disruption 1,2 . There are currently no antiviral drugs with proven clinical efficacy, nor are there vaccines for its prevention, and these efforts are hampered by limited knowledge of the molecular details of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To address this, we cloned, tagged and expressed 26 of the 29 SARS-CoV-2 proteins in human cells and identified the human proteins physically associated with each using affinity-purification mass spectrometry (AP-MS), identifying 332 high-confidence SARS-CoV-2-human protein-protein interactions (PPIs). Among these, we identify 66 druggable human proteins or host factors targeted by 69 compounds (29 FDA-approved drugs, 12 drugs in clinical trials, and 28 preclinical compounds). Screening a subset of these in multiple viral assays identified two sets of pharmacological agents that displayed antiviral activity: inhibitors of mRNA translation and predicted regulators of the Sigma1 and Sigma2 receptors. Further studies of these host factor targeting agents, including their combination with drugs that directly target viral enzymes, could lead to a therapeutic regimen to treat COVID-19.

ABSTRACTAn outbreak of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 respiratory disease, has infected over 290,000 people since the end of 2019, killed over 12,000, and caused worldwide social and economic disruption1,2. There are currently no antiviral drugs with proven efficacy nor are there vaccines for its prevention. Unfortunately, the scientific community has little knowledge of the molecular details of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To illuminate this, we cloned, tagged and expressed 26 of the 29 viral proteins in human cells and identified the human proteins physically associated with each using affinity-purification mass spectrometry (AP-MS), which identified 332 high confidence SARS-CoV-2-human protein-protein interactions (PPIs). Among these, we identify 66 druggable human proteins or host factors targeted by 69 existing FDA-approved drugs, drugs in clinical trials and/or preclinical compounds, that we are currently evaluating for efficacy in live SARS-CoV-2 infection assays. The identification of host dependency factors mediating virus infection may provide key insights into effective molecular targets for developing broadly acting antiviral therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 and other deadly coronavirus strains.

A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis was conducted of non-long-terminal-repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons based on an extended sequence alignment of their reverse transcriptase (RT) domain. The 440 amino acid positions used included a region proposed to be similar to the "thumb" of the right-handed RT structure found in retroviruses. All identified non-LTR elements could be grouped into 11 distinct clades. Using the rates of sequence change derived from studies of the vertical inheritance of R1 and R2 elements in arthropods as a comparison, we found no evidence for the horizontal transmission of non-LTR elements. Assuming vertical descent, the phylogeny suggested that non-LTR elements are as old as eukaryotes, with each of the 11 clades dating back to the Precambrian era. The analysis enabled us to propose a simple chronology for the acquisition of different enzymatic domains in the evolution of the non-LTR class of retrotransposons. The first non-LTR elements were sequence specific by virtue of a restriction-enzyme-like endonuclease located downstream of the RT domain. Evolving from this original group were elements (eight clades) that acquired an apurinic-apyrimidic endonuclease-like domain upstream of the RT domain. Finally, four of these clades have inherited an RNase H domain downstream of the RT domain. The phylogenies of the AP endonuclease and RNase H domains were also determined for this report and are consistent with the monophyletic acquisition of these domains. These studies represent the most comprehensive effort to date to trace the evolution of a major class of transposable elements.

Multiple stringent confinement strategies should be used whenever possible

R2 elements are non-LTR retrotransposons that insert in the 28S rRNA genes of arthropods. Partial sequence data from many species have previously suggested that these elements have been vertically inherited since the origin of this phylum. Here, we compare the complete sequences of nine R2 elements selected to represent the diversity of arthropods. All of the elements exhibited a uniform structure. Identification of their conserved sequence features, combined with our biochemical studies, allows us to make the following inferences concerning the retrotransposition mechanism of R2. While all R2 elements insert into the identical sequence of the 28S gene, it is only the location of the initial nick in the target DNA that is rigidly conserved across arthropods. Variation at the R2 5' junctions suggests that cleavage of the second strand of the target site is not conserved within or between species. The extreme 5' and 3' ends of the elements themselves are also poorly conserved, consistent with a target primed reverse transcription mechanism for attachment of the 3' end and a template switch model for the attachment of the 5' end. Comparison of the approximately 1,000-aa R2 ORF reveals that it can be divided into three domains. The central 450-aa domain can be folded by homology modeling into a tertiary structure resembling the fingers, palm, and thumb subdomains of retroviral reverse transcriptases. The carboxyl terminal end of the R2 protein appears to be the endonuclease domain, while the amino-terminal end contains zinc finger and c-myb-like DNA-binding motifs.

The non-long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposon, R2, encodes a sequence-specific endonuclease responsible for its insertion at a unique site in the 28S rRNA genes of arthropods. Although most non-LTR retrotransposons encode an apurinic-like endonuclease upstream of a common reverse transcriptase domain, R2 and many other site-specific non-LTR elements do not (CRE1 and 2, SLACS, CZAR, Dong, R4). Sequence comparison of these site-specific elements has revealed that the region downstream of their reverse transcriptase domain is conserved and shares sequence features with various prokaryotic restriction endonucleases. In particular, these non-LTR elements have a Lys͞Arg-Pro-Asp-X 12-14aa -Asp͞Glu motif known to lie near the scissile phosphodiester bonds in the protein-DNA complexes of restriction enzymes. Site-directed mutagenesis of the R2 protein was used to provide evidence that this motif is also part of the active site of the endonuclease encoded by this element. Mutations of this motif eliminate both DNA-cleavage activities of the R2 protein: first-strand cleavage in which the exposed 3 end is used to prime reverse transcription of the RNA template and second-strand cleavage, which occurs after reverse transcription. The general organization of the R2 protein appears similar to the type IIS restriction enzyme, FokI, in which specific DNA binding is controlled by a separate domain located amino terminal to the cleavage domain. Previous phylogenetic analysis of their reverse transcriptase domains has indicated that the non-LTR elements identified here as containing restriction-like endonucleases are the oldest lineages of non-LTR elements, suggesting a scenario for the evolution of non-LTR elements.Eukaryotic retrotransposable elements can be divided into two lineages that utilize completely different mechanisms of integration (summarized in ref. 1). Those elements with long terminal repeats (LTRs), the LTR retrotransposable elements, are similar both in structure and in their retrotransposition mechanism to retroviruses (2). Reverse transcription of the RNA templates from these elements is primed by cellular tRNA molecules. Because the reverse transcriptase of these elements is capable of jumping from the terminal repeats at one end of the template to the other end, synthesis of first and second strands results in a complete double-stranded DNA intermediate. This DNA molecule then is integrated into the host chromosome, utilizing an integrase similar to the transposase of DNA-mediated elements (3).Non-LTR retrotransposable elements, on the other hand, appear to use a simpler mechanism of retrotransposition. Reverse transcription of the RNA template is primed by a 3Ј hydroxyl group released by cleavage of the chromosomal target site, a process termed target-primed reverse transcription (TPRT) (4). Synthesis of the cDNA directly onto the chromosome means that integration of non-LTR elements requires only the reverse transcriptase and a ''simple'' endonuclease. A first clue as to the nature of non-LTR e...

All aspects of biological diversification ultimately trace to evolutionary modifications at the cellular level. This central role of cells frames the basic questions as to how cells work and how cells come to be the way they are. Although these two lines of inquiry lie respectively within the traditional provenance of cell biology and evolutionary biology, a comprehensive synthesis of evolutionary and cell-biological thinking is lacking. We define evolutionary cell biology as the fusion of these two eponymous fields with the theoretical and quantitative branches of biochemistry, biophysics, and population genetics. The key goals are to develop a mechanistic understanding of general evolutionary processes, while specifically infusing cell biology with an evolutionary perspective. The full development of this interdisciplinary field has the potential to solve numerous problems in diverse areas of biology, including the degree to which selection, effectively neutral processes, historical contingencies, and/or constraints at the chemical and biophysical levels dictate patterns of variation for intracellular features. These problems can now be examined at both the within-and among-species levels, with single-cell methodologies even allowing quantification of variation within genotypes. Some results from this emerging field have already had a substantial impact on cell biology, and future findings will significantly influence applications in agriculture, medicine, environmental science, and synthetic biology.evolutionary cell biology | cell biology | adaptive evolution | random genetic drift | cellular evolutionThe origin of cells constituted one of life's most important early evolutionary transitions, simultaneously enabling replicating entities to corral the fruits of their catalytic labor and providing a unit of inheritance necessary for further evolutionary refinement and diversification. The centrality of cellular features to all aspects of biology motivates the focus of cell biology on the biophysical/biochemical aspects of a broad swath of traits that include gene expression, metabolism, intracellular transport and communication, cellcell interactions, locomotion, and growth. No one questions the rich contributions that have resulted from this focus on how cells work. However, with an emphasis on maximizing experimental consistency in a few well-characterized model systems, cell biologists have generally eschewed the variation that motivates most questions in evolutionary biology.Because all evolutionary change ultimately requires modifications at the cellular level, questioning and understanding how cellular features arise and diversify should be a central research venue in evolutionary biology. However, if there is one glaring gap in this field, it is the absence of widespread cell-biological thinking. Despite the surge of interest at the molecular, genomic, and developmental levels, much of today's study of evolution is only moderately concerned with cellular features, perhaps due to lack of appreciation for...

No abstract