While vaccine development will hopefully quell the global pandemic of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, small molecule drugs that can effectively control SARS-CoV-2 infection are urgently needed. Here, inhibitors of spike (S) mediated cell entry were identified in a high throughput screen of an approved drugs library with SARS-S and MERS-S pseudotyped particle entry assays. We discovered six compounds (cepharanthine, abemaciclib, osimertinib, trimipramine, colforsin, and ingenol) to be broad spectrum inhibitors for spike-mediated entry. This work could contribute to the development of effective treatments against the initial stage of viral infection and provide mechanistic information that might aid the design of new drug combinations for clinical trials for COVID-19 patients.
While vaccine development will hopefully quell the global pandemic of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, small molecule drugs that can effectively control SARS-CoV-2 infection are urgently needed. Here, inhibitors of spike (S) mediated cell entry were identified in a high throughput screen of an approved drugs library with SARS-S and MERS-S pseudotyped particle entry assays. We discovered six compounds (cepharanthine, abemaciclib, osimertinib, trimipramine, colforsin, and ingenol) to be broad spectrum inhibitors for spike-mediated entry. This work could contribute to the development of effective treatments against the initial stage of viral infection and provide mechanistic information that might aid the design of new drug combinations for clinical trials for COVID-19patients.
Coronaviruses are enveloped,
single-stranded, positive-sensed RNA viruses. While some coronaviruses
cause the common cold, others are highly pathogenic and have led to
several outbreaks in recent years.[1] In
2003, the coronavirus strain SARS-CoV caused severe acute respiratory
syndrome outbreak in Asia.[2] In 2013, the
Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) emerged with similar clinical
symptoms as SARS, and the causative agent was named MERS-CoV.[3] The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
was first identified in December 2019, and is caused by SARS-CoV-2,
which was named based on sequence similarities to SARS-CoV.[4] While many clinical trials are actively under
way for treatment of COVID-19, only remdesivir has gained emergency
use authorization from the United States Food and Drug Administration.
However, it is already clear that this drug alone is not enough to
combat the COVID-19 pandemic.[5] Therefore,
there is an unmet medical need to identify additional drugs with anti-SARS-CoV-2
activity to ameliorate disease in hundreds of millions of yet infectible
individuals.SARS-CoV-2 is a biological safety level 3 (BSL-3)
pathogen. Currently,
most facilities for high-throughput screening (HTS) are only BSL-2,
and few BSL-3 facilities have some HTS capabilities. Despite these
challenges, several drug repurposing screens for SARS-CoV-2 have been
reported.[6−10] Development of BSL-2 compatible SARS-CoV-2 compound screening assays
is an alternative approach for HTS and drug development. Viral entry
assays utilizing pseudotyped particles (PP) are one type of cell-based
BSL-2 viral assays that could be utilized for HTS. PP contain viral
envelope proteins, but carry a reporter gene instead of the viral
genome, and thus display the necessary viral coat proteins for host
receptor and membrane interactions without the capacity for replication.
Although these BSL-2 viral entry assays have been successfully applied
to HTS campaigns for several viruses such as Ebola virus,[11] influenza,[12] and
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),[13] this
is the first report of coronavirusspike protein pseudotyped particle
entry inhibitor screens.For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, the spike
proteins (S) are responsible
for host receptor binding and priming by host proteases to trigger
membrane fusion. Thus, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoVspike proteins were pseudotyped
with murine leukemia virus (MLV) gag-pol polyprotein to form SARS-S
and MERS-S PP carrying luciferase reporter RNA.[14,15] The PP entry assays include inoculation of susceptible cells with
SARS-S or MERS-S PP, incubation to allow luciferase reporter gene
expression, and measurement of luciferase reporter activity. These
protocols were successfully optimized and miniaturized in 1536-well
plate formats suitable for HTS. Here, we report parallel drug repurposing
screens using SARS-S and MERS-S PP entry assays to identify a set
of broad-spectrum coronavirus entry inhibitors. SARS-CoV-2 live virus
cytopathic effect (CPE) assay was used to test the generality of these
coronavirus entry inhibitors, confirming inhibition of SARS-CoV-2
entry.
Results
Optimization and Miniaturization of SARS-S
and MERS-S PP Entry
Assays
Both SARS-S and MERS-S PP were generated by a three-plasmid
cotransfection to yield particles containing capsid protein of murine
leukemia virus (MLV), spike protein (SARS-S or MERS-S), and luciferase
RNA (Figure a). The
original entry assays were developed in 24-well plates in which host
cells were inoculated with PP. Upon cell entry, the particle releases
the luciferase RNA reporter for subsequent expression of the luciferase
enzyme (Figure b).[14,15]
Figure 1
Illustration
of pseudotyped particle generation and entry assay.
(a) Three plasmids (pCMV-MLVgag-pol, pcDNA-SARS-S/MERS-S, and pTG-Luc)
are cotransfected into HEK-293T/17 cells. The plasmids express MLV
core gag-pol polyprotein, coronavirus spike glycoproteins, and luciferase
RNAs, which together assemble into pseudotyped particles. (b) Comparison
of SARS/MERS-CoV and pseudotyped particle, showing shared spike proteins
to facilitate entry into target cell. Once cell entry occurs, RNAs
of pseudotyped particles are released into the cell, where they are
reverse transcribed into DNAs, integrated into the genome, and express
luciferase reporter enzyme. Illustrations were made with BioRender.
Illustration
of pseudotyped particle generation and entry assay.
(a) Three plasmids (pCMV-MLVgag-pol, pcDNA-SARS-S/MERS-S, and pTG-Luc)
are cotransfected into HEK-293T/17 cells. The plasmids express MLV
core gag-pol polyprotein, coronavirusspike glycoproteins, and luciferase
RNAs, which together assemble into pseudotyped particles. (b) Comparison
of SARS/MERS-CoV and pseudotyped particle, showing shared spike proteins
to facilitate entry into target cell. Once cell entry occurs, RNAs
of pseudotyped particles are released into the cell, where they are
reverse transcribed into DNAs, integrated into the genome, and express
luciferase reporter enzyme. Illustrations were made with BioRender.To optimize these assays for miniaturization into
1536-well plates,
we first tested the SARS-S and MERS-S PP entry in three cell lines:
Vero E6, Huh7, and Calu-3. We found that Vero E6 cells produced the
highest luciferase signal for SARS-S PP assay and that Huh7 cells
yielded the highest signal for MERS-S (Figure a). Vesicular stomatitis virus G glycoprotein
(VSV-G) is a class III fusion protein that constitutes the sole fusogenic
protein, and does not require protease priming.[16] Thus, VSV-G PP was used as a positive control and produced
high signals for all three cell lines (Figure a). These cell tropism data agree with that
from previous reports.[15,17] On the basis of these results,
the Vero E6 cell line and Huh7 cell line were chosen for SARS-S and
MERS-S PP entry assays, respectively. A time course experiment showed
that a higher signal-to-basal (S/B) ratio, calculated as the ratio
of luminescence signal of glycoprotein-containing PP to that of bald
PP (delEnv), was achieved with 48 h PP incubation compared with 24
h PP incubation (Figure b). The S/B ratios of SARS-S PP in Vero E6 cells were 48.6 at 24
h incubation and 381.4 at 48 h incubation, and the S/B ratios of MERS-S
PP in Huh7 cells were 199.1 at 24 h incubation and 2201.4 at 48 h
incubation. Therefore, the 48 h time point was used for all following
experiments.
Figure 2
Assay optimization. (a) Entry of SARS-S, MERS-S, delEnv,
and VSV-G
pseudotyped particles (PP) in Vero E6, Huh7, and Calu-3 cells as assayed
by luciferase reporter expression. RLU = relative luminescence units.
(b) Cell entry time course of PP. Luciferase reporter activity is
assayed at 24 and 48 h after PP addition. (c) Representative image
montage of Vero E6 and Huh7 cells treated with VSV-G, SARS-S, or delEnv
PP for 72 h and immunostained using mouse-antiluciferase antibody
(magenta). Cells were also stained with Hoechst 33342 (cyan) for nuclei
and HCS Cell Mask Green (yellow) for cell bodies. Images were captured
using a 20× objective. Graphs on the right panel are high-content
imaging measurements of the percentage of cells that are positive
for luciferase expression. Positive cells were identified using a
cell intensity threshold and the number of transfected cells was divided
by the total cell count in the field. N = 9 fields
per well in three wells. Error bars indicate SD. (d) PP ultrastructure
was examined by negative stain EM. Individual PP decorated with spike-like
projections were observed. The presence of spike glycoproteins on
the surface of SARS-S PP was confirmed by 10 nm-immunogold labeling
(black dots). MERS PP displayed a dense array of spike-like projections.
Scale bar = 100 nm. (e) PP entry assay was miniaturized to 1536-well
format and the performance of SARS-S, MERS-S, delEnv, and VSV-G PP
in Vero E6, Huh7, and Calu-3 cells is shown.
Assay optimization. (a) Entry of SARS-S, MERS-S, delEnv,
and VSV-G
pseudotyped particles (PP) in Vero E6, Huh7, and Calu-3 cells as assayed
by luciferase reporter expression. RLU = relative luminescence units.
(b) Cell entry time course of PP. Luciferase reporter activity is
assayed at 24 and 48 h after PP addition. (c) Representative image
montage of Vero E6 and Huh7 cells treated with VSV-G, SARS-S, or delEnv
PP for 72 h and immunostained using mouse-antiluciferase antibody
(magenta). Cells were also stained with Hoechst 33342 (cyan) for nuclei
and HCS Cell Mask Green (yellow) for cell bodies. Images were captured
using a 20× objective. Graphs on the right panel are high-content
imaging measurements of the percentage of cells that are positive
for luciferase expression. Positive cells were identified using a
cell intensity threshold and the number of transfected cells was divided
by the total cell count in the field. N = 9 fields
per well in three wells. Error bars indicate SD. (d) PP ultrastructure
was examined by negative stain EM. Individual PP decorated with spike-like
projections were observed. The presence of spike glycoproteins on
the surface of SARS-S PP was confirmed by 10 nm-immunogold labeling
(black dots). MERS PP displayed a dense array of spike-like projections.
Scale bar = 100 nm. (e) PP entry assay was miniaturized to 1536-well
format and the performance of SARS-S, MERS-S, delEnv, and VSV-G PP
in Vero E6, Huh7, and Calu-3 cells is shown.We examined the percentage of cells transduced with luciferase
RNA by PP entry using immunofluorescence staining of luciferase protein
and found that in Vero E6 cells, SARS-S PP and VSV-G PP produced 1.6%
and 6.5% luciferase positive cells, respectively (Figure c). In Huh7 cells, MERS-S PP
and VSV-G pp transduction produced 10.9% and 26.8% luciferase positive
cells, respectively (Figure c). In all cells, the negative control delEnv PP and no PP
conditions produced negligible luciferase staining. The percentage
of luciferase positive cells correlated with luciferase enzyme activity
when comparing different PP in the same cell line. However, cell line
comparisons did not show correlation between each PP, which may in
part reflect differences in the amount of luciferase expression per
cell. The ultrastructure of SARS-S and MERS-S PP were examined by
negative stain electron microscopy (EM) to ensure that they showed
the expected morphology. EM analysis revealed regularly sized, 125–200
nm diameter spherical structures, that were often partially or completely
covered with a dense array of fine filamentous or lollipop shaped
projections, consistent with the expected appearance of spike glycoproteins
(Figure d). The presence
of SARS-S on the surface of SARS-S PP was further confirmed by immunogold
labeling (Figure d).
MERS-S PP displayed a conspicuous dense coat of spike-like structures,
but lack of a primary antibody has thus far precluded confirmation
of their identity with immunogold labeling.Both SARS-S and
MERS-S PP entry assays were then miniaturized into
1536-well plate format. The cell tropism pattern in the 1536-well
format matched what was seen in the 96-well format (Figure e). For SARS-S PP, the best
assay performance was seen in Vero E6 cells compared with delEnv PP,
with an S/B of 182.3, coefficient of variation (CV) of 24.1%, and
a Z′ factor of 0.26. For MERS-S PP the best
assay performance was seen in Huh7 cells, with an S/B of 5325.8, CV
of 10.9, and Z′ factor of 0.67. Therefore,
the SARS-S PP entry assay in Vero E6 cells and the MERS-S PP entry
assay in Huh7 cells were robust and advanced to HTS.
SARS-S and
MERS-S Entry Inhibitor Drug Repurposing Screens
The NCATS
pharmaceutical collection (NPC) of 2678 compounds, representing
approved or investigational drugs,[18] was
used for drug repurposing screens of both SARS-S and MERS-S PP entry
assays. The primary screens were carried out at four compound concentrations
(0.46, 2.3, 11.5, and 57.5 μM). Compound cytotoxicity as determined
by an ATP content assay was counter screened in both Vero E6 and Huh7
cell lines, at the same concentrations (Figure ). All primary screening data sets were deposited
to PubChem (Table ). The criteria to select hits for follow-up experiments include
compounds in curve classes 1 and 2 with efficacy >50% in the PP
entry
assay, and little to no cell killing effect in the cytotoxicity assays
using Vero E6 or Huh7 cells. Curve class 1 concentration–responses
are complete curves that show both top and bottom asymptotes, while
curve class 2 curves show only one asymptote.[19] Sixty-one and sixty-five compounds were identified as hits from
SARS-S and MERS-S PP viral entry assays, respectively. After removing
20 overlapping hits, 106 primary hits (4.0% hit rate) were selected
for activity confirmation and follow-up studies.
Figure 3
Schematic of
repurposing screen and follow up assays.
Table 1
PubChem Assay IDs (AIDs)a
AID
no. of compounds
concentration-response
format
assay
cell line
1479145
2678
4-pt, 1:5
SARS-S PP entry
Vero E6
1479150
2678
4-pt, 1:5
cytoxicity
Vero E6
1479149
2678
4-pt, 1:5
MERS-S PP entry
Huh7
1479147
2678
4-pt, 1:5
cytoxicity
Huh7
1479148
106
11-pt, 1:3
SARS-S PP entry
Vero E6
1494158
106
11-pt, 1:3
VSV-G PP entry
Vero E6
1479144
106
11-pt, 1:3
cytoxicity
Vero E6
1494157
106
11-pt, 1:3
MERS-S PP entry
Huh7
1494156
106
11-pt, 1:3
VSV-G PP entry
Huh7
1479146
106
11-pt, 1:3
cytoxicity
Huh7
Datasets can
be found at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ under the AIDs listed.
Datasets can
be found at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ under the AIDs listed.Schematic of
repurposing screen and follow up assays.
Hit Confirmation and Follow up Assays
In our secondary
assays, we retested the 106 cherry-picked hits in the original SARS-S
and MERS-S PP entry assays, along with ATP content cytotoxicity assays
at 11 concentrations with 1:3 titration. PP entry assays rely on luciferase
RNA reporter expression, a process which involves the reverse transcription
of luciferase RNA, integration into host genome, and expression. Indeed,
some of the confirmed hits had known mechanisms of action against
reverse transcriptase (adefovir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate),
and integrase (elvitegravir and dolutegravir). Therefore, another
counter assay, VSV-G PP entry assay, was tested in both Vero E6 and
Huh7 cell lines against the 106 hits. In addition to eliminating false
positives that inhibit luciferase expression, this assay identified
compounds that specifically blocked spike glycoprotein-mediated PP
entry. All data sets for secondary assays are publicly available on
PubChem (Table ).These follow up assays yielded a set of seven inhibitors that showed
greater than 10-fold selectivity to either SARS-S or MERS-S PP entry
assays compared with the VSV-G PP entry assays, and a safety index
greater than 10-fold (CC50/EC50) (Figure a,b, Table ). Of these seven compounds, only cepharanthine
was active against both SARS-S and MERS-S with greater than 10-fold
selectivity. While trimipramine, copansilib, abemaciclib, and osimertinib
showed some level of selectivity toward either SARS-S or MERS-S entry
versus VSV-G entry, they only reached 10-fold selectivity in one of
the spike PP entry assays. Ingenol and NKH477 were only active in
SARS-S PP entry in Vero E6, and not in MERS-S entry in Huh7 cells.
Figure 4
Concentration response
of entry inhibitors. (a) Concentration response
of entry inhibitors against SARS-S and VSV-G PP entry in Vero E6 cells.
Biological replicates n = 2. (b) Concentration response
of entry inhibitors against MERS-S and VSV-G PP entry in Huh7 cells.
Biological replicates n = 2. (c) Concentration response
of entry inhibitors against SARS-S, MERS-S, and VSV-G PP entry in
Calu-3 cells. Biological replicates n = 3. (d) Compound
structures.
Table 2
SARS-S and MERS-S Selective Compounds
and Their anti-SARS-CoV-2 Activitya
SARS-S
PP in Vero E6
VSV-G PP in Vero E6
Vero E6 cytotoxicity
SARS-CoV-2 CPE
Vero E6 cytotoxicity
compound name(MOA)
EC50 (μM)
efficacy
(%)
EC50 (μM)
efficacy
(%)
CC50 (μM)
cytotox (%)
selectivity ratiob
EC50 (μM)
efficacy
(%)
CC50 (μM)
cytotox (%)
safety ratioc
NKH477 (adenylyl cyclase
activator)
1.36
71.4
N/A, >57.5
0
N/A, > 57.5
0
42.3
23.06
45.6
25.20
42.0
1.1
trimipramine (tricyclic
antidepressant)
4.29
90.9
N/A, >57.5
29.2
N/A, >57.5
16.6
13.4
20.52
48.1
N/A, >20
16.6
1.0
osimertinib (EGFR inhibitor)
2.71
117.5
42.94
118.4
17.1
99.6
15.8
3.98
60.0
10.00
99.7
2.5
ingenol (topical antitumor medication)
0.02
93.3
0.24
76.4
N/A, >57.5
–4.0
12.0
0.06
38.2
N/A, >20
0.0
355.7
cepharanthine (anti-inflammatory,
antineoplastic)
1.92
90.9
21.52
76.9
42.94
106.2
11.2
1.41
92.5
11.22
99.0
7.9
Notation: N/A = Not active (<30%
efficacy), highest concentration tested is listed; MOA = Mechanism
of action; N/D = Not determined.
Selectivity ratio was calculated
as EC50 of VSV-G PP entry divided by SARS-S or MERS-S PP entry EC50.
For curves with <30% efficacy, the highest concentration tested
(57.5 μM) was used to calculate the ratio.
Cytotoxicity ratio was calculated
as CC50 of Vero E6 (SARS-CoV-2 CPE counter screen) divided by EC50
of SARS-CoV-2 CPE assay. For curves with <30% efficacy/cytotoxicity,
the highest concentration tested (20 μM) was used to calculate
the ratio.
Notation: N/A = Not active (<30%
efficacy), highest concentration tested is listed; MOA = Mechanism
of action; N/D = Not determined.Selectivity ratio was calculated
as EC50 of VSV-G PP entry divided by SARS-S or MERS-S PP entry EC50.
For curves with <30% efficacy, the highest concentration tested
(57.5 μM) was used to calculate the ratio.Cytotoxicity ratio was calculated
as CC50 of Vero E6 (SARS-CoV-2 CPE counter screen) divided by EC50
of SARS-CoV-2 CPE assay. For curves with <30% efficacy/cytotoxicity,
the highest concentration tested (20 μM) was used to calculate
the ratio.Concentration response
of entry inhibitors. (a) Concentration response
of entry inhibitors against SARS-S and VSV-G PP entry in Vero E6 cells.
Biological replicates n = 2. (b) Concentration response
of entry inhibitors against MERS-S and VSV-G PP entry in Huh7 cells.
Biological replicates n = 2. (c) Concentration response
of entry inhibitors against SARS-S, MERS-S, and VSV-G PP entry in
Calu-3 cells. Biological replicates n = 3. (d) Compound
structures.These seven confirmed entry inhibitors
were then tested in SARS-S,
MERS-S, and VSV-G PP entry assays in Calu-3 cells (Figure c). While most entry inhibitors
failed to show selectivity toward spike-mediated entry in Calu-3 cells,
abemaciclib did show >10-fold selectivity toward both SARS-S- and
MERS-S-based entry compared with VSV-G.
To test whether the confirmed
SARS-S and MERS-S mediated PP entry inhibitors are active against
SARS-CoV-2, we further tested the top seven compounds in a SARS-CoV-2
cytopathic effect (CPE) assay.[20] We found
that six out of seven entry inhibitors significantly reduced (>30%)
CPE caused by the SARS-CoV-2 infection in Vero E6 cells (Figure , Table ). Cepharathine was found to
be active against SARS-S in Vero E6 and MERS-S in Huh7 cells, and
inhibited SARS-CoV-2 CPE to near full efficacy with bell-shaped concentration
response due to cytotoxicity (Figure b). Five other compounds, trimipramine, ingenol, abemaciclib,
osimertinib, and NKH447 also protected against SARS-CoV-2 induced
CPE, but to lesser degrees than cepharanthine (Figure ).
Figure 5
SARS-CoV-2 CPE assay and cytotoxicity concentration
response for
(a) trimipramine, (b) cepharanthine, (c) ingenol, (d) copanisib, (e)
abemaciclib, (f) osimertinib, and (g) NKH477. Data plotted using biological
replicates of n = 2.
SARS-CoV-2 CPE assay and cytotoxicity concentration
response for
(a) trimipramine, (b) cepharanthine, (c) ingenol, (d) copanisib, (e)
abemaciclib, (f) osimertinib, and (g) NKH477. Data plotted using biological
replicates of n = 2.
Discussion
Viruses rely on host cells for replication, and
cell entry is the
first step of the viral infection life cycle, and a prime target for
drug intervention. Both broad-spectrum and pathogen-specific inhibitors
of viral entry have been proposed for emerging viruses such as Ebola
virus and coronaviruses.[21,22] Proven therapeutics
for viral entry include several approved drugs targeting CCR5, the
host coreceptor for HIV.[23] In SARS-CoV
and SARS-CoV-2, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) has been recognized
as a high affinity binding receptor for the viral spike glycoprotein,
while dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) is the receptor for MERS-CoV.[24,25] Following receptor binding, membrane fusion is mediated by spike
protein cleavage by host cell proteases. TMPRSS2 protease has been
shown to be the predominant protease in Calu-3 cells, which mediates
ACE2-dependent direct membrane fusion that does not involve the endocytic
pathway.[17] Alternate entry pathways are
used in cell lines such as Vero E6 and Huh7 that involve endocytosis
of viral particles and cathepsin protease priming for membrane fusion.[24] Here, we have applied phenotypic SARS-S and
MERS-S PP entry assays for drug repurposing screens with the potential
of identifying viral entry inhibitors with different mechanisms of
action.In this study, we identified seven coronavirusspike-mediated
entry
inhibitors out of a library of 2678 approved drugs (Figure ). After further testing in
a SARS-CoV-2 live virus CPE assay and removing cytotoxic compounds,
we found that six out of seven entry inhibitors were able to rescue
the CPE of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Figure ), indicating the utility of these PP entry
assays. One caveat of our methodology is that the primary screens
utilized SARS-S and MERS-S PP, which would only be able to identify
entry inhibitors that are common to these three coronavirusspike-mediated
entry, but not those entry inhibitors that are specific to SARS-CoV-2spike-mediated entry. Although the exact mechanism for entry inhibition
is unclear, these six compounds, inhibited SARS-S and MERS-S PP cell
entry with greater potency than VSV-G PP cell entry (Figure ), indicating their coronavirus-specific
inhibitory activities on viral entry into host cells. Of these six,
only cepharanthine and abemaciclib have been reported to have anti-SARS-CoV-2
effects, while the other compounds are novel.[26] We found that cepharanthine is an inhibitor of spike-mediated cell
entry and rescued the CPE of SARS-CoV-2 to full efficacy. This was
corroborated by a recent study, which found that cepharanthine was
able to block SARS-CoV-2 induced CPE in Vero E6 cells, only when added
during the viral entry time period, and not the postentry period.[27] Cepharanthine is a natural product used in Japan
since the 1950s for treatments of several diseases without major side
effects.[28] It has polypharmacology, with
anti-inflammatory activity linked to AMPK activation and NFκB
inhibition.[28] Cepharanthine has previously
reported antiviral activities against HIV, SARS-CoV, HCoV-OC43, human
T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV).[29]We also identified two other approved
drugs, abemaciclib and osimertinib
as entry inhibitors that showed greater than 50% rescue of the SARS-CoV-2
CPE (Figures and 5). Interestingly, abemaciclib also showed spike-specific
PP entry inhibition in Calu3 cells over VSV-G mediated PP entry (Figure c). Abemaciclib is
a CDK4/6 inhibitor that is approved by the FDA for breast cancer treatment.[30,31] Cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) are a group of serine-threonine kinases
that regulate the cell cycle, and have been targeted for anticancer
drug development. Additionally, antiviral activities of CDK inhibitors
have been reported against HIV, herpes simplex virus (HSV), HBV, and
Zika virus.[32] The antiviral mechanism of
action for CDK inhibitors works mainly through the suppression of
viral genome replication in host cells.[32] Our data suggest that abemaciclib inhibits CPE of coronaviruses
by blocking cell entry in Vero E6, Huh7, and Calu-3 cells. Therefore,
the structure of this compound may have the potential to be optimized
as a more potent SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitor. Osimertinib is an inhibitor
of T790 M mutant of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and is
approved by the FDA for treatment of patients with metastatic mutation-positive
nonsmall cell lung cancer.[33] Osimertinib
does not have previous reported antiviral activities. We found it
to rescue the SARS-CoV-2 CPE to 60% efficacy, albeit with a narrow
therapeutic window due to cytotoxicity (Figure f).Three other inhibitors of spike-mediated
PP entry were found to
rescue SARS-CoV-2 CPE to less than 50% efficacy: trimipramine, ingenol,
and NKH477 (Figure a,c,g). Trimipramine is an oral tricyclic antidepressant. Chemically,
trimipramine is a basic amine compound belonging to cationic amphiphilic
drugs. The antiviral activity of trimipramine has been reported to
block the viral entry for Ebola virus and influenza.[34,35] Due to its chemical property, trimipramine as a basic amine can
accumulate in acidic organelles such as the late endosomes and lysosomes
in cells. A high concentration of basic amine drugs in late endosomes
and lysosomes may block viral genome release into cytosol.[34,35] However, for coronaviruses, this effect might be more prominent
in cell lines such as Vero E6 and Huh7, but not in Calu-3 cells, which
have endocytosis independent entry.[24] In
accordance with this, trimipramine’s entry inhibition activity
was not confirmed in Calu-3 cells (Figure ). Importantly, the antiviral entry activity
of trimipramine has not yet been reported. In addition, clomipramine,
a close analogue of trimipramine, was also reported to protect against
SARS-CoV-2 CPE through inhibition of autophagy.[20] In the current study, clomipramine was found to be active
against SARS-S PP entry and noncytotoxic in the primary screen, but
was not selected for further follow-up because its potency was below
the threshold criteria. Ingenol mebutate is a cell death inducer approved
by the FDA for topical treatment of actinic keratosis.[36] Because of its topical delivery route and mechanisms
of action, ingenol is unlikely to be useful for treatment of COVID-19.
NKH477, also called colforsin, is a derivative of forskolin and a
potent activator of adenylate cyclase.[37] It is approved in Japan for multiple indications and does not have
reports of direct antiviral activities.A number of drug repurposing
and computer-aided virtual screens
have been reported for SARS-CoV-2. It is a common phenomenon that
the potencies identified in drug repurposing are not high enough to
be clinically relevant when compared to the human plasma concentrations
achievable at approved dosing regimens.[38] Drug combination therapy has been proposed as a practical and useful
approach for drug repurposing to treat emerging infectious diseases,
as drug synergy may reduce the individual drug concentrations in the
combinations. The synergistic effect of two- or three- drug combination
therapy can increase the therapeutic effect, reduce the doses of individual
drugs, and thus reduce potential adverse effects.[38] Ohashi et al. has reported that the combination
of cepharanthine (entry inhibitor) and nelfinavir (HIV protease inhibitor)
enhanced the anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity.[27] We believe that these coronavirus specific viral entry inhibitors
may have utility in a drug combination therapy with other anti-SARS-CoV-2
drugs that have different mechanisms of action, such as remdesivir
(the viral RNA dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor), or lysomotropic
autophagy inhibitors. In addition, considering that there have been
three different coronavirus outbreaks in the past 20 years, these
broad acting inhibitors of spike-mediated cell entry might also have
utility in drug development efforts for possible future outbreaks.
Methods
Reagents
The following items were purchased from ThermoFisher:
Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) (11965092),
Pen/Strep (15140), TrypLE (12604013), PBS -/- (w/o Ca2+ or Mg2+) (10010049), HCS Cell Mask Green (H32714), goat
antimouse AlexaFluor 647 (A28175), and Hoechst 33342 (H3570). EMEM
(30-2003) was purchased from ATCC. Hyclone FBS (SH30071.03) was purchased
from GE Healthcare. Pseudotyped particles (PP) for SARS-S PP, MERS-S
PP, VSV-G PP, and delEnv PP (PP without fusion proteins) were custom
produced by the contract research organization Codex Biosolutions
(Gaithersburg, MD) using previously reported methods.[14,15] Microplates were purchased from Greiner Bio-One: white tissue-culture
treated 96-well plates (655090), black μclear 96-well plates
(655083), white tissue-culture treated 384-well plates (781073), and
white tissue-culture treated 1536-well plates (789173-F). The following
were purchased from Promega: BrightGlo Luciferase Assay System (E2620),
CellTiter-Glo Luminescent Cell Viability Assay (G7573). ATPLite Luminescence
Assay kit was purchased from PerkinElmer (6016949). Cell Staining
Buffer (420201) was purchased from BioLegend. Paraformaldehyde (PFA)
was purchased from Electron Microscopy Sciences (15714-S). Mouse-antifirefly
luciferase antibody was purchased from Santa Cruz (sc-74548). SARS-S
antibody was purchased from BEI Resources (NR-617).
Cell Lines
and Cell Culture
Vero E6 cells (ATCC #CRL-1586)
were cultured in EMEM with 10% FBS. Huh7 cells (JCRB cell bank #JCRB0403)
were cultured in DMEM with 10% FBS. Calu-3 cells (ATCC #HTB-55) were
cultured in EMEM with 10% FBS.
Pseudotyped Particle (PP)
Entry Assays
For the 96-well
format, cells were seeded in 50 μL/well media (20 000
cells/well for Vero E6 and Huh7, and 40 000 cells/well for
Calu-3 cells) and incubated at 37 °C and 5% CO2 overnight
(∼16 h). Supernatant was removed, and 50 μL/well of PP
was added. Plates were spin-inoculated at 1500 rpm (453g) for 45 min, incubated for 2 h at 37 °C and 5% CO2, and then 50 μL/well of growth media was added. The plates
were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C, 5% CO2. The supernatant
was removed and 100 μL/well of Bright-Glo (Promega) was added,
and the mixture was incubated for 5 min at room temperature, Luminescence
signal was measured using a PHERAStar plate reader (BMG Labtech).For the 384-well format, 10 000 cells/well of Calu-3 cells
were seeded in 10 μL of media and incubated at 37 °C and
5% CO2 overnight (∼16 h). Supernatant was removed
and 10 μL/well of 2x compounds in media was added. The mixture
was incubated for 1 h before 10 μL/well PP was added. Plates
were spin-inoculated at 1500 rpm (453g) for 45 min,
and incubated for 48 h at 37 °C, 5% CO2. The supernatant
was removed and 20 μL/well of Bright-Glo (Promega) was added,
and the mixture was incubated for 5 min at room temperature. The luminescence
signal was measured using a PHERAStar plate reader (BMG Labtech).For the 1536-well format, cells were seeded at 2000 cells/well
in 2 μL media and incubated at 37 °C, 5% CO2 overnight (∼16 h). Compounds were titrated in DMSO, and 23
nL/well was dispensed via an automated pintool workstation (Wako Automation).
Plates were incubated for 1 h at 37 °C and 5% CO2,
and 2 μL/well of PP was dispensed. Plates were spin-inoculated
by centrifugation at 1500 rpm (453g) for 45 min,
and incubated for 48 h at 37 °C and 5% CO2. After
the incubation, the supernatant was removed with gentle centrifugation
using a Blue Washer (BlueCat Bio). Then, 4 μL/well of Bright-Glo
(Promega) was dispensed and incubated for 5 min at room temperature,
and the luminescence signal was measured using a ViewLux plate reader
(PerkinElmer). All data were normalized with wells of cells treated
with DMSO and SARS-S or MERS-S PP as 100%, and wells of cells treated
with DMSO and delEnv PP as 0% entry.
ATP Content Cytotoxicity
Assay
Cells were seeded at
1000 cells/well in 2 μL/well media in 1536-well plates, and
incubated at 37 °C and 5% CO2 overnight (∼16
h). Compounds were titrated in DMSO; 23 nL/well was dispensed via
an automated pintool workstation (Wako Automation). Plates were incubated
for 1 h at 37C, 5% CO2, before 2 μL/well of media
was added. Plates were then incubated for 48 h at 37 °C, 5% CO2. Then, 4 μL/well of ATPLite (PerkinElmer) was dispensed
and incubated for 15 min at room temperature, and the luminescence
signal was measured using a Viewlux plate reader (PerkinElmer). Data
were normalized with wells containing DMSO-treated cells as 100%,
and wells containing DMSO-treated media only (no cells) as 0% viability.
Drug Repurposing Screen and Data Analysis
The NCATS
pharmaceutical collection (NPC) was assembled internally and contains
2678 compounds, which include drugs approved by US FDA and foreign
health agencies in European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Canada,
and Australia, as well as some clinical trialed experimental drugs.[18] The compounds were dissolved in 10 mM DMSO as
stock solutions, and titrated at 1:5 for primary screens with four
concentrations, and at 1:3 for follow up assays with 11 concentrations.
The SARS-S PP entry assay in Vero E6 cells and MERS-S PP entry assay
in Huh7 cells were used to screen the NPC library in parallel. Concurrently,
counter screens for cytotoxicity of compounds in Vero E6 and Huh7
were also screened against the NPC library. The primary screens assayed n = 1 for each compound concentration. Hit compounds were
chosen from NCATS compound storage at −30 °C.A
customized software developed in house at NCATS[39] was used for analyzing the primary screen data. Half-maximal
efficacious concentration (EC50) and half-maximal cytotoxicity
concentration (CC50) of compounds were calculated using
Prism software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).
Luciferase
Immunofluorescence and High-Content Imaging
Cells were seeded
at 15000 cells in 100 μL/well media in 96-well
assay plates, and incubated at 37 °C, 5% CO2 overnight
(∼16 h). The supernatant was removed, and 50 μL/well
of PP was added. Plates were spin-inoculated at 1500 rpm (453g) for 45 min, incubated for 2 h at 37 °C and 5% CO2, and then 50 μL/well of growth media was added. The
plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C, 5% CO2. Media
was aspirated, and the cells were washed once with 1X PBS (ThermoFisher).
Cells were then fixed in 4% PFA (EMS) in PBS containing 0.1% BSA (ThermoFisher)
for 30 min at room temperature. Plates were washed three times with
1X PBS and then blocked and permeabilized with 0.1% Triton-X 100 (ThermoFisher)
in Cell Staining Buffer (Biolegend) for 30 min. Permeabilization/blocking
solution was removed and 1:1000 primary mouse-antiluciferase antibody
(Santa Cruz) was added, and the mixture was incubated overnight at
4 °C. The primary antibody was aspirated, and cells were washed
three times with 1X PBS. Then 1:1000 secondary antibody goat-antimouse-AlexaFluor
647 (ThermoFisher) was added for 1 h in Cell Staining Buffer. Cells
were washed three times, and stained with 1:5000 Hoechst 33342 (ThermoFisher)
and 1:10000 HCS Cell Mask Green (ThermoFisher) for 30 min, before
three final 1X PBS washes. Plates were sealed and stored at 4 °C
prior to imaging.Plates were imaged on the IN Cell 2500 HS
automated high-content imaging system. A 20× air objective was
used to capture nine fields per well in each 96 well plate. Cells
were imaged with the DAPI, Green, and FarRed channels. Images were
uploaded to the Columbus Analyzer software for automated high-content
analysis. Cells were first identified using the Hoechst 33342 nuclear
stain in the DAPI channel. Cell bodies were identified using the HCS
Cell Mask stain in the green channel using the initial population
of Nuclei region of interests. Intensity of the FarRed channel indicating
luciferase expression was measured, and a threshold was applied based
on the background of the negative control. Average values, standard
deviations, and data counts were generated using pivot tables in Microsoft
Excel, and data were plotted in Graphpad Prism.
Negative Stain
and Immunogold Electron Microscopy
All
reagents were obtained from Electron Microscopy Sciences, unless otherwise
specified. For negative staining without immunogold labeling, freshly
glow-discharged, Formvar and carbon coated, 300-mesh copper grids
were inverted on 5 μL drops of sample on Parafilm for 1 min.
Grids with adhered sample were transferred across two drops of syringe-filtered
PBS, and then two drops of filtered distilled water before being placed
on a drop of 1% aqueous uranyl acetate for 1 min, after which grids
were blotted with filter paper, allowing a thin layer of uranyl acetate
to dry on the grid.SARS-S PP to be immunogold labeled were
adhered to freshly glow discharged, Formvar and carbon coated, 300-mesh
gold grids, transferred across three drops of filtered PBS and then
incubated on drops of filtered blocking solution containing 2% BSA
(Sigma) in PBS for 10 min. Samples were covered during the incubation
steps to prevent evaporation. The primary antibody to SARS-S (BEI)
was diluted 1:20 in filtered blocking solution. After being blocked,
grids were blotted lightly with filter paper to remove excess solution
before being transferred to primary antibody droplets and incubated
for 30 min. Then, grids were transferred across two drops of blocking
solution and incubated for 10 min. Secondary antibody (10 nm gold-conjugated
Goat-α-Mouse IgG) was diluted 1:20 in filtered blocking solution.
Grids were lightly blotted before being transferred to droplets of
secondary antibody, incubated for 30 min, and then rinsed with three
drops of PBS. Prior to negative stain, grids were transferred across
three drops of distilled water to remove PBS as described previously.
Grids were observed using a ThermoFisher Tecnai T20 transmission electron
microscope operated at 200 kV, and images were acquired using an AMT
NanoSprint1200 CMOS detector (Advanced Microscopy Techniques).
SARS-CoV-2
Cytopathic Effect (CPE) Assay
SARS-CoV-2
CPE assay was conducted at Southern Research Institute (Birmingham,
AL). Briefly, compounds were titrated in DMSO and acoustically dispensed
into 384-well assay plates at 60 nL/well. Cell culture media (MEM,
1% Pen/Strep/GlutaMax, 1% HEPES, 2% HI FBS) was dispensed at 5 μL/well
into assay plates and incubated at room temperature. Vero E6 (selected
for high ACE2 expression) was inoculated with SARS CoV-2 (USA_WA1/2020)
at 0.002 M.O.I. in media and quickly dispensed into assay plates as
4000 cells in 25 μL/well. Assay plates were incubated for 72
h at 37 °C, 5% CO2, 90% humidity. Then, 30 μL/well
of CellTiter-Glo (Promega) was dispensed and incubated for 10 min
at room temperature, and the luminescence signal was read on an EnVision
plate reader (PerkinElmer). The MOI of 0.002 was selected during assay
optimization to achieve 95% cell death at 72 h postinfection. An ATP
content cytotoxicity assay was conducted with the same protocol as
the CPE assay, but without the addition of SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Authors: James Inglese; Douglas S Auld; Ajit Jadhav; Ronald L Johnson; Anton Simeonov; Adam Yasgar; Wei Zheng; Christopher P Austin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-07-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ruili Huang; Hu Zhu; Paul Shinn; Deborah Ngan; Lin Ye; Ashish Thakur; Gurmit Grewal; Tongan Zhao; Noel Southall; Mathew D Hall; Anton Simeonov; Christopher P Austin Journal: Drug Discov Today Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 7.851
Authors: John H Beigel; Kay M Tomashek; Lori E Dodd; Aneesh K Mehta; Barry S Zingman; Andre C Kalil; Elizabeth Hohmann; Helen Y Chu; Annie Luetkemeyer; Susan Kline; Diego Lopez de Castilla; Robert W Finberg; Kerry Dierberg; Victor Tapson; Lanny Hsieh; Thomas F Patterson; Roger Paredes; Daniel A Sweeney; William R Short; Giota Touloumi; David Chien Lye; Norio Ohmagari; Myoung-Don Oh; Guillermo M Ruiz-Palacios; Thomas Benfield; Gerd Fätkenheuer; Mark G Kortepeter; Robert L Atmar; C Buddy Creech; Jens Lundgren; Abdel G Babiker; Sarah Pett; James D Neaton; Timothy H Burgess; Tyler Bonnett; Michelle Green; Mat Makowski; Anu Osinusi; Seema Nayak; H Clifford Lane Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel Wrapp; Nianshuang Wang; Kizzmekia S Corbett; Jory A Goldsmith; Ching-Lin Hsieh; Olubukola Abiona; Barney S Graham; Jason S McLellan Journal: Science Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Tianshu Xiao; Jianming Lu; Jun Zhang; Rebecca I Johnson; Lindsay G A McKay; Nadia Storm; Christy L Lavine; Hanqin Peng; Yongfei Cai; Sophia Rits-Volloch; Shen Lu; Brian D Quinlan; Michael Farzan; Michael S Seaman; Anthony Griffiths; Bing Chen Journal: Nat Struct Mol Biol Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 15.369