Zhaoyan Zhao1,2,3, Yuchen Xiao1, Lingqing Xu4, Ye Liu5, Guanmin Jiang6, Wei Wang1, Bin Li1, Tianchuan Zhu1, Qingqin Tan1, Lantian Tang1, Haibo Zhou4, Xi Huang1,2,3, Hong Shan1,2. 1. Center for Infection and Immunity, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519000, China. 2. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biomedical Imaging, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519000, China. 3. Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory, Zhuhai 519000, China. 4. Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan People's Hospital, Qingyuan 511518, China. 5. Department of Pathology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519000, China. 6. Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519000, China.
Abstract
COVID-19 has been diffusely pandemic around the world, characterized by massive morbidity and mortality. One of the remarkable threats associated with mortality may be the uncontrolled inflammatory processes, which were induced by SARS-CoV-2 in infected patients. As there are no specific drugs, exploiting safe and effective treatment strategies is an instant requirement to dwindle viral damage and relieve extreme inflammation simultaneously. Here, highly biocompatible glycyrrhizic acid (GA) nanoparticles (GANPs) were synthesized based on GA. In vitro investigations revealed that GANPs inhibit the proliferation of the murine coronavirus MHV-A59 and reduce proinflammatory cytokine production caused by MHV-A59 or the N protein of SARS-CoV-2. In an MHV-A59-induced surrogate mouse model of COVID-19, GANPs specifically target areas with severe inflammation, such as the lungs, which appeared to improve the accumulation of GANPs and enhance the effectiveness of the treatment. Further, GANPs also exert antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects, relieving organ damage and conferring a significant survival advantage to infected mice. Such a novel therapeutic agent can be readily manufactured into feasible treatment for COVID-19.
COVID-19 has been diffusely pandemic around the world, characterized by massive morbidity and mortality. One of the remarkable threats associated with mortality may be the uncontrolled inflammatory processes, which were induced by SARS-CoV-2 in infectedpatients. As there are no specific drugs, exploiting safe and effective treatment strategies is an instant requirement to dwindle viral damage and relieve extreme inflammation simultaneously. Here, highly biocompatible glycyrrhizic acid (GA) nanoparticles (GANPs) were synthesized based on GA. In vitro investigations revealed that GANPs inhibit the proliferation of the murine coronavirus MHV-A59 and reduce proinflammatory cytokine production caused by MHV-A59 or the N protein of SARS-CoV-2. In an MHV-A59-induced surrogate mouse model of COVID-19, GANPs specifically target areas with severe inflammation, such as the lungs, which appeared to improve the accumulation of GANPs and enhance the effectiveness of the treatment. Further, GANPs also exert antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects, relieving organ damage and conferring a significant survival advantage to infectedmice. Such a novel therapeutic agent can be readily manufactured into feasible treatment for COVID-19.
Coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been diffusely pandemic
worldwide,[1] with considerable impacts on
the global economy and health.[2] Excessive
host inflammation[3] in severe COVID-19patients
is likely to further progress into acute respiratory distress syndrome
(ARDS)[4] and multiorgan failure,[4,5] eventually leading to death.[6] However,
current management is supportive,[7] without
specific drugs[8] against COVID-19.[9] Therefore, safe and effective treatment strategies
to simultaneously reduce viral damage and relieve uncontrolled immune
response[10] characteristic of COVID-19 are
urgently needed.[11]Traditional Chinese
medicines have shown great potential in the
treatment of many diseases because of their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory,[12] antiviral, immunoregulatory, and antitumor effects.[13] Glycyrrhizic acid (GA), also called glycyrrhizin,[14] a common ingredient in the Chinese herb licorice,[15] has been used for liver disease treatment[16] (including viral hepatitis)[17] and specific inflammatory disorders of the skin[18] (such as atopic dermatitis).[19] GA has an antiviral effect against different viruses,[20] including SARS-related[21] coronaviruses.[22] Based on its characteristics,[23] GA is considered as one promising novel drug
candidate to fight off SARS-CoV-2 by testing alone or combining with
other drugs.[24] However, its cytotoxicity
and poor solubility in water and biological fluids[25] limit its further clinical application,[26] as it may result in low bioavailability.[27]The popularity of nanoparticles (NPs) has opened
up a new cross-disciplinary
direction for medical research,[28] such
as bioimaging,[29] biosensing, biolabeling,
photodynamic therapy,[30] and drug delivery,
due to their unique properties of water solubility, biocompatibility,[31] cost-effective synthesis, and low toxicity.[32] There have been investigations into the practical
integration of nanotechnology with small molecule-based nanomaterials
to decrease the toxic side effects of raw materials,[33] enhance raw material efficacy,[34] and deliver drugs in a targeted manner via the enhanced permeability
and retention (EPR) effect.[35] For instance,
synthesized silver NPs[36] and selenium NPs[37] could improve the biocompatibility of raw materials.
Squalene-based nanoparticles had relatively low toxicity and could
target inflamed tissues in multiple murine models.[5] Rosmarinic acid-derived nanoparticles (RANPs) showed relatively
good water solubility and bioavailability.[28] Recently, functionalized quantum dots based on GA synthesized by
the hydrothermal method had shown a relatively low toxicity.[38]Therefore, to protect against COVID-19,
highly biocompatible glycyrrhizic
acid nanoparticles (GANPs) based on the active component of GA were
synthesized. The results showed that GANPs had significant antiviral,
anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant effects in vitro and in vivo (Figure ). Such a novel approach may provide an effective therapeutic
solution for the pandemic, as well as treatment of hyperinflammation
of other diseases.
Figure 1
Schematic diagram of GANPs for COVID-19 treatment.
Schematic diagram of GANPs for COVID-19 treatment.
Experiments
and Methods
Materials
Glycyrrhizic acid (75%)
was obtained from Aladdin Chemistry Co., Ltd. Ultrapure distilled
water (DNAse and RNAse-free) was acquired from Invitrogen. A Reactive
Oxygen Species Assay Kit was provided by Beyotime Biotechnology. A
lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was provided by Sigma-Aldrich.
Preparation of GANPs and PEG-Cy5-Coated GANPs
Glycyrrhizic
acid nanoparticles (GANPs) were synthesized by using
a hydrothermal method. Briefly, glycyrrhizic acid (10 mg/mL) was dissolved
in deionized water (pH = 9.0 ± 0.2), and the mixture was subsequently
incubated at 185 °C for 6 h (GANPs). The samples were centrifuged
at 10,000 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was collected, and the small
precipitation was further removed using a dialysis bag with a molecular
weight of 14 kD to dialyze deionized water for 12 h. During the dialysis
process, deionized water was replaced every 2 h to obtain GANPs. GANP
powder is then collected and freeze-dried for further use. A Malvern
Zetasizer Nano ZSE was used to measure the hydrodynamic diameter and
ζ potentials. Morphology was observed by TEM.PEG-Cy5-coated
GANPs were PEG-Cy5 and glycyrrhizic acid nanoparticles linked together
by amide bonds. Briefly, first, EDS and NHS were mixed with nanoparticles
and incubated at 66 °C for 35 min in order to activate carboxyl
groups. Thereafter, PEG-Cy5 with amino groups was added and reacted
at 65 °C for 2 h. PEG-Cy5-coated nanoparticles were obtained
after removal of the impurities by centrifugation and dialysis. Subsequent
characterization was similar to that of GANPs.
Antiviral
Experiments
Antiviral-related
experiments were referred to the previous description.[38] In brief, L929cells were incubated with 0.40
mg/mL GANPs for 2 h, and then, the supernatant was discarded and replaced
with pretreated MHV-A59 (multiplicity of infection (MOI) = 1), which
was incubated with 0.40 mg/mL GANPs at 4 °C for 1 h in advance.
After 1 h of incubation in a 37 °Ccell incubator, the original
culture supernatant was replaced with 0.40 mg/mL GANPs and reincubated
for 24 h. Plaque assay and RT-qPCR were used to evaluate the antiviral
effect of GANPs on MHV-A59 infection.
Evaluation
of Proinflammatory Cytokine Production
After MHV-A59, the
N proteins of SARS-CoV-2 (1 mg/mL) or LPS (1
mg/mL) were stimulated for 24 h, and the cell supernatant and the
cell precipitation were collected. Inflammatory cytokine production
was evaluated using RT-qPCR assay and a precoated ELISA kit as per
manufacturer’s instructions (Dakewe, China).
Establishment of a Surrogate Mouse Model of
COVID-19 and In Vivo Therapeutic Effects
Six-week-old female BALB/cmice were intranasally (i.n.) inoculated
with the MHV-A59 virus of 1.5 × 106 plaque forming
units (PFU), which were given sodium pentobarbital and chloral hydrate
to abdominal anesthesia in advance. Meanwhile, the same amount of
PBS was inoculated intranasally into control mice. The health status
of these mice was monitored every day. MHV-A59-infectedmice and uninfectedcontrol mice were given GANPs (24 mg/kg) via the tail vein at 2, 4,
and 6 days after infection. After the lungs and livers of different
groups of mice were dissected, they were washed several times, one
part of the tissues was subsequently taken for hematoxylin and eosin
(H&E) staining, the other part was ground, and the expressions
of MHV-A59 and inflammatory cytokines were detected by RT-qPCR assay
and ELISA.
Establishment of an Animal
Model of Excessive
Inflammation and In Vivo Therapeutic Effects
Six-week-old female BALB/cmice were injected intraperitoneally with
LPS (20 mg/kg), while the same amount of PBS was injected intraperitoneally
into control mice. The mice were monitored hourly for health conditions.
Thirty minutes after LPS injection, infectedmice and uninfectedcontrol
mice were given GANPs (24 mg/kg) via the tail vein. After the lungs
and livers of different groups of mice were dissected, they were washed
several times, one part of these tissues was taken for H&E staining
accordingly, the other part was ground, and the expressions of inflammatory
cytokines and chemokines were detected by RT-qPCR assay and ELISA.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis
and Characterization of GANPs
A hydrothermal process was
used to synthesize GANPs. As shown in Figure A, GA was dissolved
in an aqueous solution (pH = 9 ± 0.2) followed by heating in
a 185 °C reactor for 6 h. Then, purified GANPs were obtained
for subsequent analysis. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was
used to characterize the surface properties of GANPs (Figure B). GANPs were round in shape
with uniform particle size and good distribution. In addition, dynamic
light scattering (DLS) results (Figure C) are consistent with TEM, the hydrodynamic diameter
distribution of GANPs is relatively narrow, and the calculated average
particle size is 70.65 nm. The average ζ potential measurements
revealed that GANPs had a negative surface charge of −32.7
mV (Figure D). The
UV–vis absorption spectrum of GANPs has a relatively small
absorption peak at 267 nm, which is caused by the surface effect and
quantum size effect, and an absorption peak for GA at 256 nm (Figure S1A), so the similarity of the absorption
peaks of GANPs and GA further confirmed the formation of GANPs (Figure E). In the fluorescence
spectrum analysis, the maximum excitation wavelength of GANPs is 356
nm, and the maximum emission wavelength is 438 nm (Figure F). Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy (FT-IR) results illustrated that there were five distinct
absorption peaks at 1072, 1396, 1621, 2944, and 3421 cm–1 in the GANP spectra, corresponding to C–O, C=O, C=C,
C–H, and O–H, respectively. The results showed that
−OH and −COOH are abundant on the surface of GANPs.
Compared with the results of GA, it was found that partial functional
groups of GA were present in GANPs (Figure S1B). These physical properties of GANPs are consistent with our expectations.
Figure 2
Preparation
and characterization of GANPs. (A) Schematic diagram
for the synthesis of GANPs. (B) Representative TEM image of GANPs
(scale bar, 500 nm). (C) Hydrodynamic size distribution of GANPs,
as measured by DLS. (D) Particle surface ζ potential of GANPs.
(E) UV–vis absorption spectrum of GANPs. (F) Fluorescence excitation
(black) and emission (red) spectra of GANPs. (G) FT-IR spectrum of
GANPs.
Preparation
and characterization of GANPs. (A) Schematic diagram
for the synthesis of GANPs. (B) Representative TEM image of GANPs
(scale bar, 500 nm). (C) Hydrodynamic size distribution of GANPs,
as measured by DLS. (D) Particle surface ζ potential of GANPs.
(E) UV–vis absorption spectrum of GANPs. (F) Fluorescence excitation
(black) and emission (red) spectra of GANPs. (G) FT-IR spectrum of
GANPs.
The Biocompatibility
of GANPs
Then,
we assessed the biocompatibility of GANPs and the raw material GA in vitro (Figure S2). In these
experiments and subsequent experiments, L929cells (mouse fibroblasts),
RAW264.7cells (mouse mononuclear macrophages), THP-1cells (human
mononuclear cells), and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (hPBMCs)
were evaluated. As the concentration of GANPs gradually increased
from 0.2 to 1.2 mg/mL, the survival rate of all cells was almost 100%,
while cell viability was approximately 60% at 1.5 mg/mL and 30% at
2 mg/mL of GANPs, indicating that 1.2 mg/mL is a physiologically safe
concentration of GANPs. In contrast, as the GAconcentration was increased,
the viability of all cells decreased. THP-1cell viability was even
less than 30% when the concentration of GA was 0.6 mg/mL, and the
cell viabilities of the other three types of cells were approximately
50% when the concentration of GA was 1.2 mg/mL. At concentrations
as high as 2 mg/mL of GA, the cell viabilities were only about 10%.
These data suggested that compared with that of GA, the biocompatibility
of GANPs has indeed observably improved.
GANPs
Inhibit the Proliferation of MHV
The anticoronavirus activity
of GA has been reported previously.[21] Here,
the coronavirusmouse hepatitis virus
A59 (MHV-A59) was used to evaluate antiviral activity of GANPs. MHV-A59
is a greatly crucial member of the hepatitis B virus 2A subgroup,[39] which is closely related to the current pandemichuman coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in the same subgroup.[40] There is considerable evidence that MHV-A59 infection is
associated with various pathological conditions, including hepatitis,
autoimmune hepatitis-like diseases, thymic degeneration, hyperglobulinemia,
and transient demyelination.[41] The respiratory
tract and lung tissues can also be infected with MHV-A59, resulting
in severe pathological damage to the respiratory tract and lungs similar
to that of SARS-CoV, leading to acute inflammation.[42] Several studies suggested that MHV-A59 is expected to be
used as a surrogate model of SARS-CoV-2.[43] Therefore, we planned to construct a surrogate SARS-CoV-2 infection
model. First, a cell model was established in vitro. Figure A–C
shows that the addition of GANPs notably weakened MHV-A59 in intracellular
and cell supernatants and also decreased RNA expression of MHV-A59
genes in the cells. In the supernatant of the cells, GANPs reduced
the titers by a maximum of 105 times. Additionally, we
found that the inhibitory effect of GANPs on MHV-A59 showed a dose-dependent
trend, and the inhibition effect reached almost 80% when the concentration
of GANPs was 0.4 mg/mL. Then, the addition of GANPs was found to significantly
reduce MHV-A59 mRNA expression at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h post infection
(hpi) (Figure D),
further supporting the potent antiviral effect of GANPs. The above
results showed that GANPscould significantly inhibit the multiplication
of MHV-A59.
Figure 3
Antiviral effects of GANPs in vitro. (A) Relative
intracellular MHV-A59N mRNA expression in L929 cells incubated with
GANPs at different concentrations for 24 h measured through RT-qPCR.
(B,C) Titers of supernatant (B) and cell lysate (C) of MHV-A59 treated
with GANPs at different concentrations for 24 h determined by plaque
assay. (D) Relative intracellular MHV-A59N mRNA expression in L929
cells incubated with 0.4 mg/mL GANPs at 12, 24, 36, 48 hpi. (E) Effect
of GANPs on direct inactivation of MHV-A59 determined by plaque assay.
(F) Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) images for MHV-A59 inactivation
analysis, QD605-labeled MHV-A59-infected L929 cells treated or untreated
with 0.4 mg/mL GANPs (scale bar: 20 μm). (G–I) Effect
of GANPs on the proliferation of MHV-A59 at various stages including
adsorption (G), invasion (H), and replication (I). The data are presented
as the mean ± SEM and are representative of three independent
experiments. *P < 0.05, **P <
0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ns means nonsignificant
difference, compared with the indicated group by the t test.
Antiviral effects of GANPs in vitro. (A) Relative
intracellular MHV-A59N mRNA expression in L929cells incubated with
GANPs at different concentrations for 24 h measured through RT-qPCR.
(B,C) Titers of supernatant (B) and cell lysate (C) of MHV-A59 treated
with GANPs at different concentrations for 24 h determined by plaque
assay. (D) Relative intracellular MHV-A59N mRNA expression in L929cells incubated with 0.4 mg/mL GANPs at 12, 24, 36, 48 hpi. (E) Effect
of GANPs on direct inactivation of MHV-A59 determined by plaque assay.
(F) Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) images for MHV-A59 inactivation
analysis, QD605-labeled MHV-A59-infectedL929cells treated or untreated
with 0.4 mg/mL GANPs (scale bar: 20 μm). (G–I) Effect
of GANPs on the proliferation of MHV-A59 at various stages including
adsorption (G), invasion (H), and replication (I). The data are presented
as the mean ± SEM and are representative of three independent
experiments. *P < 0.05, **P <
0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ns means nonsignificant
difference, compared with the indicated group by the t test.Subsequently, we analyzed the
effect of GANPs on the proliferation
of MHV-A59 during various stages of adsorption, invasion, replication,
and release to explore the possible mechanism of the antiviral properties
of GANPs. The first test was to see if GANPscould directly inactivate
MHV-A59. Plaque experiments showed that the number of MHV-A59 was
reduced by about 20 times after GANP treatment, suggesting that GANPs
had the ability to directly inactivate MHV-A59 (Figure E). Furthermore, MHV-A59 tagged with QD605
was used to infect L929cells for inactivation analysis, and the results
of laser confocal microscopy showed that compared with no GANP treatment,
the GANP treatment group showed a noteworthy decrease in the red fluorescence
of MHV-A59 (Figure F), which further indicated the direct inactivation of GANPs. In
the process of the adsorption of MHV-A59, the plaque test revealed
that the GANP treatment group had a significant inhibitory effect
on the adsorption of MHV-A59 (Figure G). In the process of the invasion of MHV-A59, GANP
treatment reduced the infected titers of the virus by approximately
103-fold compared with no treatment (Figure H). We performed RT-qPCR to test the viral
RNA level of MHV-A59 and evaluate the effect of GANPs on viral replication
(Figure I). GANPs
reduced the MHV-A59 RNA level by nearly 10 times, indicating that
GANPs had a certain influence on MHV-A59 during the replication stage.
In addition, the effect of GANPs on the release of MHV-A59 was studied.
Compared with the untreated group, the titer of MHV-A59 did not significantly
decrease after GANP treatment (the data was not shown), indicating
that GANPs had no ability to inhibit the release of newly generated
MHV-A59 in the offspring. In summary, GANPs suppressed the proliferation
of MHV-A59 through targeting invasion, adsorption, and replication,
and statistical analysis showed that GANPs had a definite direct inactivation
of the virus, but it could not inhibit the release of the progeny
virus.
GANPs Exhibit Anti-inflammatory and Antioxidant
Activities In Vitro
Studies have shown that
severe COVID-19patients may have hyperinflammatory syndrome.[3] Therefore, methods to reduce excessive inflammation
to decrease the mortality rate are urgently needed. Our data showed
that GANPscould prominently suppress the proliferation of MHV-A59,
but whether GANPscan relieve the excessive inflammationcaused by
MHV-A59 simultaneously remained to be determined. Here, MHV-A59 was
used to stimulate mouse monocyte RAW 264.7cells. The results in Figure A revealed that compared
with normal RAW 264.7cells (the CTL group), GANP treatment only (GANP
group) showed similar cytokine levels, revealing that GANPscould
not stimulate the inflammation. The mRNA expression levels of interleukin
(IL)-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-12 were significantly increased
after MHV-A59 stimulation (MHV group), which are all proinflammatory
cytokines in physiological processes, indicating that the model of
cellular inflammation was successfully constructed. After GANP treatment
(MHV+GANP group), the mRNA expression levels of these cytokines were
all observably diminished. Subsequently, ELISA results revealed that
the protein expressions of IL-1β (Figure B) and IL-6 (Figure C) also exhibited the same inhibitory effects.
These data suggested that GANPs have antiviral properties and alleviate
the hyperinflammationcaused by MHV-A59.
Figure 4
Anti-inflammatory and
antioxidant activities of the GANPs in vitro. (A)
Relative mRNA expression of proinflammatory
cytokines in RAW264.7 cells induced by MHV-A59 measured by RT-qPCR.
(B,C) Concentrations of IL-1β (B) and IL-6 (C) in the media
of MHV-A59-stimulated RAW264.7 cells quantified by ELISA. (D,E) Representative
flow cytometry images (D) and quantification analysis (E) of intracellular
ROS generation in MHV-A59-stimulated RAW246.7 cells after being treated
with different concentrations of GANPs. The data are presented as
the mean ± SEM and are representative of three independent experiments.
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ns means nonsignificant difference, compared
with the indicated group by the t test.
Anti-inflammatory and
antioxidant activities of the GANPs in vitro. (A)
Relative mRNA expression of proinflammatory
cytokines in RAW264.7cells induced by MHV-A59 measured by RT-qPCR.
(B,C) Concentrations of IL-1β (B) and IL-6 (C) in the media
of MHV-A59-stimulated RAW264.7cells quantified by ELISA. (D,E) Representative
flow cytometry images (D) and quantification analysis (E) of intracellular
ROS generation in MHV-A59-stimulated RAW246.7cells after being treated
with different concentrations of GANPs. The data are presented as
the mean ± SEM and are representative of three independent experiments.
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, and ns means nonsignificant difference, compared
with the indicated group by the t test.The progressive progression of the inflammatory process is
associated
with the disturbance of the redox balance. Reactive oxygen species
(ROS) take vital effects on the occurrence and development of inflammatory
diseases, bacterial infections, and other physiological diseases.
Reducing excessive ROS levels can inhibit viral proliferation. Therefore,
it is necessary to relieve severe oxidative stress in addition to
anti-inflammation and antivirus. Briefly, after 2 h of MHV-A59 stimulation,
GANPs with gradient concentrations were added into RAW264.7cells
to incubate for 12 h, and ROS represented by green fluorescence were
detected by flow cytometry. Figure D,E reveals that MHV-A59-stimulated cells without GANP
treatment displayed a considerably high ROS level. After GANP treatment,
the ROS levels were significantly reduced, and the inhibitory effect
of the GANPs tended to be dose-dependent. The above data suggested
that GANPscould relieve the overproduction of ROS induced by MHV-A59.To verify that GANPs have direct anti-inflammatory and antioxidative
properties in vitro, not just a decrease in inflammation
levels caused by a drop in viral titer, we next used a lipopolysaccharide
(LPS) as a non-viral inflammatory stimulator to develop in
vitro models of hyperinflammation and hyperoxidation. LPS
stimulation of RAW264.7 macrophages causes overproduction of proinflammatory
cytokines and ROS.[5] The results (Figures S3 and S4) showed that LPS-stimulated
cells without GANP treatment displayed increased expression of proinflammatory
cytokines and a considerably high ROS level. After GANP treatment,
the expression levels of these cytokines were all prominently reduced;
meanwhile, the ROS levels were significantly decreased. These results
imply that GANPs have direct immunoregulatory and antioxidant abilities in vitro.
In Vivo Targeting and Systematic
Therapeutic Effects of GANPs
We then systemically estimated
the biocompatibility of GANPs in vivo. Ten female
healthy BALB/cmice aged 6 weeks were randomly divided into two groups:
a GANP group or a control group, in which these healthy mice were
given GANPs (24 mg/kg) or an equal amount of PBS via the tail vein,
respectively. Seven days after injection, the main organs of these
mice were harvested for sectioning and staining with H&E. Figure A shows that no significant
histological abnormalities or lesions were present, indicating that
GANPs had no significant toxicity in vivo. The above
data indicated that GANPs are safe and nontoxic to the major organs
of mice and could be used in subsequent animal experiments, further
suggesting that GANPs have great potential for clinical application.
Figure 5
In vivo safety, targeting, and systematic therapeutic
effects of GANPs. (A) Representative H&E staining images of the
main organs from mice injected with GANPs or PBS (scale bar, 100 μm).
(B,C) Representative NIRF images (B) and fluorescence quantification
analysis (C) of mouse organs 12 h after intravenous injection of fluorescent
GANPs-Cy5 into BALB/c mice intranasally infected with MHV-A59 or uninfected.
(D) Daily weight changes in normal BALB/c mice treated with PBS (CTL)
and in BALB/c mice intranasally infected with MHV-A59 treated with
PBS (MHV) or GANPs (MHV+GANPs). (E) Survival analysis of BALB/c mice
given the different treatments described above, n = 12 mice per group. For survival evaluation, the log-rank (Mantel–Cox)
test was used, giving a P value of P = 0.0488 (*P < 0.05). (F) Concentrations of
IL-6 in the mouse serum measured by ELISA. The data are presented
as the mean ± SEM and are representative of three independent
experiments. **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001, compared with the indicated group by the t test.
In vivo safety, targeting, and systematic therapeutic
effects of GANPs. (A) Representative H&E staining images of the
main organs from mice injected with GANPs or PBS (scale bar, 100 μm).
(B,C) Representative NIRF images (B) and fluorescence quantification
analysis (C) of mouse organs 12 h after intravenous injection of fluorescent
GANPs-Cy5 into BALB/cmice intranasally infected with MHV-A59 or uninfected.
(D) Daily weight changes in normal BALB/cmice treated with PBS (CTL)
and in BALB/cmice intranasally infected with MHV-A59 treated with
PBS (MHV) or GANPs (MHV+GANPs). (E) Survival analysis of BALB/cmice
given the different treatments described above, n = 12 mice per group. For survival evaluation, the log-rank (Mantel–Cox)
test was used, giving a P value of P = 0.0488 (*P < 0.05). (F) Concentrations of
IL-6 in the mouse serum measured by ELISA. The data are presented
as the mean ± SEM and are representative of three independent
experiments. **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001, compared with the indicated group by the t test.To verify the in vivo effects of GANPs in a relatively
safe environment, we used MHV-A59 intranasal infection to construct
a surrogate mouse model of COVID-19, forming similar hyperinflammation
and pathological damage caused by SARS-CoV-2; this model has previously
been reported as a surrogate mouse model of severe pneumonia induced
by SARS-CoV or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)infection.[41,42] Then, Cy5-labeled PEG was attached
to the surface of GANPs (GANPs-Cy5) (Figure S5) by an amide bond to study distribution and metabolism in
vivo. Ten female healthy BALB/cmice aged 6 weeks were randomly
divided into two groups: GANPs-Cy5 (24 mg/kg) was injected into both
uninfected and MHV-A59-infectedmice via the tail vein. Twelve hours
after injection, the main organs of these mice in the different experimental
groups were imaged using a Xenogen IVIS Spectrum. As we can see in Figure B,C, Cy5 fluorescence
in the uninfected group (MHV– group) was mainly found in the
livers and kidneys, suggesting that GANPs were metabolized through
hepatobiliary and kidney systems. Cy5 fluorescence in the infected
group (MHV+ group) was mainly found in the lungs, livers, and kidneys,
and the lungs and livers showed a stronger fluorescence than that
in the uninfected group. As the MHV-infectedmice suffered extensive
inflammatory damage in lung and liver tissues, exhibiting enhanced
vascular permeability and blood perfusion, GANPs with longer circulation
time in blood were thought to have a higher likelihood of preferentially
locating to these tissues. These above results indicated that GANPs
may have the ability to target sites of severe inflammation through
the EPR effect to further exert antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects.Next, we validated the therapeutic properties of GANPs in vivo. Several healthy female BALB/cmice aged 6 weeks
were randomly divided into four groups (n = 12 per
group): GANPs (24 mg/kg) or PBS was injected into the uninfectedmice
(named CTL or GANP group) or MHV-A59-infectedmice (named MHV or MHV+GANP
group) via the tail vein. The mice from the MHV group had a decreased
appetite and less weight gain as compared to the CTL group, while
the mice from the MHV+GANP group gradually regained their body weight
(Figure D). Mice from
the MHV group began dying on the third day, while GANP treatment conferred
a significant survival advantage to infectedmice (Figure E). The raised serum levels
of IL-6 and other inflammatory cytokines in COVID-19patientscould
further result in respiratory failure and ARDS. Therefore, after blood
was collected retro-orbitally, the IL-6 expression level in the serum
was quantitatively detected by ELISA (Figure F). Compared with the CTL group, the GANP
group showed similar cytokine levels, revealing that GANPscould not
stimulate systemicinflammation, implying the favorable concealment
of GANPs in the mouse immune system. Furthermore, the results showed
that GANPscould significantly reduce IL-6 expression levels compared
with the MHV-infected group, suggesting that GANPs may be able to
relieve systemicinflammation.
In Vivo Therapeutic Effects
of GANPs in the Lungs
More importantly, lung histopathological
alterations were analyzed and compared among differently treated lungs
that were collected after 7 days post treatment (Figure A). Typically, severe lung
damage, including edema, diffuse alveolar damage, and inflammatory
leukocyte infiltration, was observed in mice from the MHV group. Meanwhile,
most of the mice from the MHV+GANP group exhibited less lung injury.
Furthermore, the pulmonary computed tomography (CT) results of the
MHV group showed severe ground-glass opacity, indicating severe inflammatory
infiltration and exudation, which are the main CT changes in critical
COVID-19patients. Meanwhile, GANP treatment significantly relieved
lung damage (Figure B). Moreover, the viral titers of MHV-A59 and cytokines were detected
in the lung tissues. Figure C shows that compared with those in the MHV-A59-infected group,
the viral load of MHV-A59 in the MHV+GANP group was significantly
decreased, suggesting that GANPscould also alleviate MHV-A59 infection in vivo. These results confirm the ability of GANPs to repress
the proliferation of MHV-A59 in the lungs. Lung tissues were taken
to test the expression levels of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines.
The IL-1β (Figure D), IL-6 (Figure E), IFN-γ (Figure F), TGF-β (Figure G), and MCP-1 (Figure S6A) expression levels in the lungs were quantitatively detected by
ELISA, and the results prompted that GANPscould notably fall off
the expression levels of these cytokines and chemokines. The mRNA
expression levels of proinflammatory cytokines IL-6, IFN-γ,
and TNF-α and chemokines IP-10, G-SCF, and MCP-1 in the MHV+GANP
groups were also significantly decreased compared to the MHV group
(Figure S6B), suggesting that GANPscould
relieve lung inflammatory injury in MHV-A59-infectedmice.
Figure 6
In
vivo therapeutic effects of GANPs in the lungs.
(A) Representative H&E staining images of the lungs from mice
in the different groups (scale bar, 200 μm). (B) Computed tomography
(CT) images of the lungs from mice in the different groups. (C) Titers
of MHV-A59 in lung tissues detected by plaque assay. (D–G)
Concentrations of IL-1β (D), IL-6 (E), IFN-γ (F), and
TGF-β (G) in lung tissues quantified by ELISA. The data are
presented as the mean ± SEM and are representative of three independent
experiments. *P < 0.05 and ***P < 0.001, compared with the indicated group by the t test.
In
vivo therapeutic effects of GANPs in the lungs.
(A) Representative H&E staining images of the lungs from mice
in the different groups (scale bar, 200 μm). (B) Computed tomography
(CT) images of the lungs from mice in the different groups. (C) Titers
of MHV-A59 in lung tissues detected by plaque assay. (D–G)
Concentrations of IL-1β (D), IL-6 (E), IFN-γ (F), and
TGF-β (G) in lung tissues quantified by ELISA. The data are
presented as the mean ± SEM and are representative of three independent
experiments. *P < 0.05 and ***P < 0.001, compared with the indicated group by the t test.
In Vivo Therapeutic Effects
of GANPs in the Livers
Hepatic dysfunction has been reported
in COVID-19patients, particularly in those with severe disease. Acute
liver injurycases are associated with higher mortality.[4] So, we also analyzed the viral load and inflammatory
damage in the livers. Similar to the lung results, GANPscould lessen
pathological damage (Figure A) and dwindle the viral load (Figure B) and inflammation levels (Figure C–H) in the livers.
Compared with the MHV group, biochemical indexes of liver function
alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST)
were prominently diminished in the MHV+GANP group (Figure I). To sum up, these above
data indicated that GANPs have very characteristic antiviral activity in vivo; meanwhile, GANPs played a crucial role in reducing
hyperinflammation and alleviating lung and liver injuries in vivo.
Figure 7
In vivo therapeutic effects of GANPs
in the livers.
(A) Representative H&E staining images of the livers from mice
in the different groups (scale bar: 200 μm). (B) Titers of MHV-A59
in liver tissues detected by plaque assay. (C–G) Concentrations
of IL-1β (C), IL-6 (D), IFN-γ (E), TGF-β (F), and
MCP-1 (G) in liver tissues quantified by the ELISA. (H) Relative mRNA
expression of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines in liver tissues
measured by RT-qPCR. (I) Liver function biochemical indexes (ALT,
alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase) in the
different groups. The data are presented as the mean ± SEM and
are representative of three independent experiments. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001, compared with the indicated group by the t test.
In vivo therapeutic effects of GANPs
in the livers.
(A) Representative H&E staining images of the livers from mice
in the different groups (scale bar: 200 μm). (B) Titers of MHV-A59
in liver tissues detected by plaque assay. (C–G) Concentrations
of IL-1β (C), IL-6 (D), IFN-γ (E), TGF-β (F), and
MCP-1 (G) in liver tissues quantified by the ELISA. (H) Relative mRNA
expression of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines in liver tissues
measured by RT-qPCR. (I) Liver function biochemical indexes (ALT,
alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase) in the
different groups. The data are presented as the mean ± SEM and
are representative of three independent experiments. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001, compared with the indicated group by the t test.
Therapeutic
Effect of GANPs on LPS-Induced
Hyperinflammation In Vivo
In order to further
verify the direct inflammatory regulation abilities of GANPs in vivo, LPS (20 mg/kg) was injected intraperitoneally to
BALB/cmice, and GANPs (24 mg/kg) were injected into the tail vein
30 min later (n = 12 per group). After 12 h, blood
was collected retro-orbitally, and liver and lung tissues were dissected
to test the expression of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines by
Q-PCR and ELISA. The results (Figure S7) showed that GANPscould significantly reduce IL-6 expression levels
compared with the LPS group, suggesting that GANPs may be able to
relieve systemicinflammation. Results (Figures S8 and S9) from liver and lung tissues showed that GANPs significantly
reduced the expression levels of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines.
To sum up, the above data suggested that GANPs played a crucial role
in reducing hyperinflammation in vivo.
GANPs Inhibit the Production of Proinflammatory
Cytokines Induced by the N Proteins of SARS-CoV-2
To investigate
whether GANPs effectively protect against hyperinflammation in humancells induced by SARS-CoV-2, an inflammatory injury cell model was
first established by using human mononuclear THP-1cells. In this
experiment, we used the nucleocapsid (N) protein of SARS-CoV-2, a
potent diagnostic and prophylactic target, to stimulate THP-1cells;
then, the expression of proinflammatory cytokines in the levels of
mRNA and protein was detected by using RT-qPCR and ELISA, respectively.
As we can see, Figure A depicts that after stimulation with the N protein of SARS-CoV-2,
the mRNA expression levels of proinflammatory cytokines IL-1α,
IL-1β, and IL-6 were observably increased, suggesting that we
successfully constructed a cell model of inflammatory insult. Compared
with N stimulation alone, GANP treatment observably dwindled the mRNA
expression levels of IL-1α, IL-1β, and IL-6. ELISA results
also showed the same anti-inflammatory effects (Figure B,C). These data suggested that GANPs were
highly protective against uncontrolled inflammation in vitro.
Figure 8
GANPs inhibiting the production of proinflammatory cytokines induced
by the N proteins of SARS-CoV-2. (A) Relative mRNA expression of proinflammatory
cytokines in THP-1 cells stimulated by the N protein of SARS-CoV-2
measured by RT-qPCR. (B,C) Concentrations of IL-1β (B) and IL-6
(C) in the media of THP-1 cells stimulated by the N protein of SARS-CoV-2
quantified by ELISA. (D–F) Relative mRNA expression of proinflammatory
cytokines IL-1α (D), IL-1β (E), and IL-6 (F) in hPBMCs
stimulated by the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 measured by RT-qPCR. (G,H)
Concentrations of IL-1β (G) and IL-6 (H) in the media of hPBMCs
stimulated by the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 quantified by ELISA. The
data are presented as the mean ± SEM and are representative of
three independent experiments. **P < 0.01 and
***P < 0.001, compared with the indicated group
by the t test.
GANPs inhibiting the production of proinflammatory cytokines induced
by the N proteins of SARS-CoV-2. (A) Relative mRNA expression of proinflammatory
cytokines in THP-1cells stimulated by the N protein of SARS-CoV-2
measured by RT-qPCR. (B,C) Concentrations of IL-1β (B) and IL-6
(C) in the media of THP-1cells stimulated by the N protein of SARS-CoV-2
quantified by ELISA. (D–F) Relative mRNA expression of proinflammatory
cytokines IL-1α (D), IL-1β (E), and IL-6 (F) in hPBMCs
stimulated by the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 measured by RT-qPCR. (G,H)
Concentrations of IL-1β (G) and IL-6 (H) in the media of hPBMCs
stimulated by the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 quantified by ELISA. The
data are presented as the mean ± SEM and are representative of
three independent experiments. **P < 0.01 and
***P < 0.001, compared with the indicated group
by the t test.To further approximate the real state of SARS-CoV-2 infection in
humans, additionally, we used the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate
hPBMCs from healthy donors (n = 12). As shown in Figure D–F, after
stimulation with the N protein, the mRNA expression levels of IL-1α,
IL-1β, and IL-6 were markedly enhanced, and after GANP treatment,
the expression levels of these three proinflammatory cytokines prominently
lessened. ELISA results also showed the same anti-inflammatory effects
(Figure G,H). These
results revealed that GANPs also had a good role in regulating the
inflammatory process of human PBMCs stimulated with the N protein
of SARS-CoV-2. To sum up, these above results demonstrated that GANPscould also be used to alleviate the excessive inflammatory response
of humancells induced by SARS-CoV-2.
Conclusions
In the present study, we have confirmed the antiviral effect and
anti-inflammatory property of GANPs, which did not have noticeable
toxicity in vitro or in vivo. The
hydrothermal synthesis of GANPs significantly improved the biocompatibility
of the raw material GA, which provided a technical basis for extending
the application range of GA. This study identified antiviral and anti-inflammatory
management simultaneously, which produced relatively good and thorough
effects that relieved the excessive inflammationcaused by SARS-CoV-2.
Additionally, GANPscould target areas of severe inflammation through
the EPR effect in the surrogate mouse model of COVID-19, which appeared
to improve the accumulation of GANPs in the lungs and livers, further
increasing the effectiveness of the treatment. Our findings may provide
some ideas for a new effective and low-toxicity pandemic therapeutic
strategy and a potential treatment for hyperinflammation in general
that can be readily manufactured.
Authors: Gerold Hoever; Lidia Baltina; Martin Michaelis; Rimma Kondratenko; Lia Baltina; Genrich A Tolstikov; Hans W Doerr; Jindrich Cinatl Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2005-02-24 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Nadine De Albuquerque; Ehtesham Baig; Xuezhong Ma; Jianhua Zhang; William He; Andrea Rowe; Marlena Habal; Mingfeng Liu; Itay Shalev; Gregory P Downey; Reginald Gorczynski; Jagdish Butany; Julian Leibowitz; Susan R Weiss; Ian D McGilvray; M James Phillips; Eleanor N Fish; Gary A Levy Journal: J Virol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Malika Aid; Kathleen Busman-Sahay; Samuel J Vidal; Zoltan Maliga; Stephen Bondoc; Carly Starke; Margaret Terry; Connor A Jacobson; Linda Wrijil; Sarah Ducat; Olga R Brook; Andrew D Miller; Maciel Porto; Kathryn L Pellegrini; Maria Pino; Timothy N Hoang; Abishek Chandrashekar; Shivani Patel; Kathryn Stephenson; Steven E Bosinger; Hanne Andersen; Mark G Lewis; Jonathan L Hecht; Peter K Sorger; Amanda J Martinot; Jacob D Estes; Dan H Barouch Journal: Cell Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 66.850