The sudden emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the end of 2019 from the Chinese province of Hubei and its subsequent pandemic spread highlight the importance of understanding the full molecular details of coronavirus infection and pathogenesis. Here, we compared a variety of replication features of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV and analysed the cytopathology caused by the two closely related viruses in the commonly used Vero E6 cell line. Compared to SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 generated higher levels of intracellular viral RNA, but strikingly about 50-fold less infectious viral progeny was recovered from the culture medium. Immunofluorescence microscopy of SARS-CoV-2-infected cells established extensive cross-reactivity of antisera previously raised against a variety of non-structural proteins, membrane and nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV. Electron microscopy revealed that the ultrastructural changes induced by the two SARS viruses are very similar and occur within comparable time frames after infection. Furthermore, we determined that the sensitivity of the two viruses to three established inhibitors of coronavirus replication (remdesivir, alisporivir and chloroquine) is very similar, but that SARS-CoV-2 infection was substantially more sensitive to pre-treatment of cells with pegylated interferon alpha. An important difference between the two viruses is the fact that – upon passaging in Vero E6 cells – SARS-CoV-2 apparently is under strong selection pressure to acquire adaptive mutations in its spike protein gene. These mutations change or delete a putative furin-like cleavage site in the region connecting the S1 and S2 domains and result in a very prominent phenotypic change in plaque assays.

Because maternal seropositivity for CMV is associated with substantial protection against congenital CMV infection, prevention measures have focused mainly on seronegative pregnant women for decades. However, population-wide insight in the contribution of nonprimary infection (reactivation and/or re-infection with a different strain) on the most common sequela, hearing loss, is missing. A population-based prediction model was developed to estimate the proportion of congenital CMV-related hearing loss resulting from nonprimary maternal infection. Incorporated was a meta-analysis of the risk of hearing loss, calculating pooled proportions of children with hearing loss after nonprimary and primary infection. Subsequently, the model was applied for worldwide present population seroprevalences (range 30-95%). It was estimated that, for all population seroprevalences, nonprimary maternal infections are responsible for the majority of congenital CMV infections. This proportion increased with seroprevalence, ranging from 57% (95%CI 24-85%) to 96% (95% CI 88-99%) for seroprevalences of 30% to 95%. Our meta-analysis (six reports) showed that the risk of hearing loss after nonprimary infection was 11% (28/253 children, 95% CI 7-15%) versus 13% (50/385 children, 95% CI 10-16%) after primary infection. Incorporating this risk into our model, we estimated that nonprimary infections also accounted for the majority of CMV-related hearing loss. This proportion ranged from 53% (95% CI 13-86%) to 95% (95% CI 62-99%) for seroprevalences of 30% to 95%. Our data underline the worldwide contribution of nonprimary infections in causing CMV-related hearing loss. These results imply that prevention research such as vaccine and hygiene studies should not only be directed at seronegative but also seropositive pregnant women.

Background: Short-term follow-up of COVID-19 patients reveals pulmonary dysfunction, myocardial damage and severe psychological distress. Little is known of the burden of these sequelae, and there are no clear recommendations for follow-up of COVID-19 patients. In this multi-disciplinary evaluation, cardiopulmonary function and psychological impairment after hospitalization for COVID-19 are mapped. Methods: We evaluated patients at our outpatient clinic 6 weeks after discharge. Cardiopulmonary function was measured by echocardiography, 24-hours ECG monitoring and pulmonary function testing. Psychological adjustment was measured using questionnaires and semi-structured clinical interviews. A comparison was made between patients admitted to the general ward and Intensive care unit (ICU), and between patients with a high versus low functional status. Findings: Eighty-one patients were included of whom 34 (41%) had been admitted to the ICU. New York Heart Association class II-III was present in 62% of the patients. Left ventricular function was normal in 78% of patients. ICU patients had a lower diffusion capacity (mean difference 12,5% P = 0.01), lower forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity (mean difference 14.9%; P<0.001; 15.4%; P<0.001; respectively). Risk of depression, anxiety and PTSD were 17%, 5% and 10% respectively and similar for both ICU and non-ICU patients. Interpretation: Overall, most patients suffered from functional limitations. Dyspnea on exertion was most frequently reported, possibly related to decreased DLCOc. This could be caused by pulmonary fibrosis, which should be investigated in long-term follow-up. In addition, mechanical ventilation, deconditioning, or pulmonary embolism may play an important role.

No abstract

No abstract