Analyzing the vast coronavirus literature with CoronaCentral.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused a surge in research exploring all aspects of the virus and its effects on human health. The overwhelming publication rate means that researchers are unable to keep abreast of the literature. To ameliorate this, we present the CoronaCentral resource that uses machine learning to process the research literature on SARS-CoV-2 together with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. We categorize the literature into useful topics and article types and enable analysis of the contents, pace, and emphasis of research during the crisis with integration of Altmetric data. These topics include therapeutics, disease forecasting, as well as growing areas such as "long COVID" and studies of inequality. This resource, available at https://coronacentral.ai, is updated daily.

The unique features of SARS-CoV-2 transmission: Comparison with SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza virus.

From 2002 to 2019, three deadly human coronaviruses (hCoVs), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged to produce outbreaks of SARS, MERS and coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), respectively. All three hCoVs are members of the Betacoronavirus genus in the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae and share many similarities in virology and epidemiology. However, the pattern and scale of Covid-19 global spread is similar to 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza (H1N1pdm09), rather than SARS or MERS. Covid-19 exhibits high viral shedding in the upper respiratory tract at an early stage of infection, and has a high proportion of transmission competent individuals that are pre-symptomatic, asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic, characteristics seen in H1N1pdm09 but not in SARS or MERS. These two traits of Covid-19 and H1N1pdm09 result in reduced efficiency in identification of transmission sources by symptomatic screening and play important roles in their ability to spread unchecked to cause pandemics. To overcome these attributes of Covid-19 in community transmission, identifying the transmission source by testing for virus shedding and interrupting chains of transmission by social distancing and public masking are required.

Lethal zoonotic coronavirus infections of humans - comparative phylogenetics, epidemiology, transmission, and clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019, The Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronaviruses-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), emerged as a new zoonotic pathogen of humans at the end of 2019 and rapidly developed into a global pandemic. Over 106 million COVID-19 cases including 2.3 million deaths have been reported to the WHO as of February 9, 2021. This review examines the epidemiology, transmission, clinical features, and phylogenetics of three lethal zoonotic coronavirus infections of humans: SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, and The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-COV). RECENT FINDINGS: Bats appear to be the common natural source of SARS-like CoV including SARS-CoV-1 but their role in SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV remains unclear. Civet cats and dromedary camels are the intermediary animal sources for SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV infection, respectively whereas that of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear. SARS-CoV-2 viral loads peak early on days 2-4 of symptom onset and thus high transmission occurs in the community, and asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission occurs commonly. Nosocomial outbreaks are hallmarks of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV infections whereas these are less common in COVID-19. Several COVID-19 vaccines are now available. SUMMARY: Of the three lethal zoonotic coronavirus infections of humans, SARS-CoV-2 has caused a devastating global pandemic with over a million deaths. The emergence of genetic variants, such as D614G, N501Y (variants 1 and 2), has led to an increase in transmissibility and raises concern about the possibility of re-infection and impaired vaccine response. Continued global surveillance is essential for both SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV, to monitor changing epidemiology due to viral variants.

Zoonotic coronavirus epidemics: Severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To review the virology, immunology, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and treatment of the following 3 major zoonotic coronavirus epidemics: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DATA SOURCES: Published literature obtained through PubMed database searches and reports from national and international public health agencies. STUDY SELECTIONS: Studies relevant to the basic science, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and treatment of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19, with a focus on patients with asthma, allergy, and primary immunodeficiency. RESULTS: Although SARS and MERS each caused less than a thousand deaths, COVID-19 has caused a worldwide pandemic with nearly 1 million deaths. Diagnosing COVID-19 relies on nucleic acid amplification tests, and infection has broad clinical manifestations that can affect almost every organ system. Asthma and atopy do not seem to predispose patients to COVID-19 infection, but their effects on COVID-19 clinical outcomes remain mixed and inconclusive. It is recommended that effective therapies, including inhaled corticosteroids and biologic therapy, be continued to maintain disease control. There are no reports of COVID-19 among patients with primary innate and T-cell deficiencies. The presentation of COVID-19 among patients with primary antibody deficiencies is variable, with some experiencing mild clinical courses, whereas others experiencing a fatal disease. The landscape of treatment for COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, with both antivirals and immunomodulators demonstrating efficacy. CONCLUSION: Further data are needed to better understand the role of asthma, allergy, and primary immunodeficiency on COVID-19 infection and outcomes.

Oxygen Therapy and Risk of Infection for Health Care Workers Caring for Patients With Viral Severe Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence regarding the infection risk associated with different modalities of oxygen therapy used in treating patients with severe acute respiratory infection. Health care workers face significant risk of infection when treating patients with a viral severe acute respiratory infection. To ensure health care worker safety and limit nosocomial transmission of such infection, it is crucial to synthesize the evidence regarding the infection risk associated with different modalities of oxygen therapy used in treating patients with severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 2000, to April 1, 2020, for studies describing the risk of infection associated with the modalities of oxygen therapy used for patients with severe acute respiratory infection. The study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by independent reviewers. The primary outcome measure was the infection of health care workers with a severe acute respiratory infection. Random-effect models were used to synthesize the extracted data. RESULTS: Of 22,123 citations, 50 studies were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 16 for meta-analysis. Globally, the quality of the included studies provided a very low certainty of evidence. Being exposed or performing an intubation (odds ratio 6.48; 95% confidence interval 2.90 to 14.44), bag-valve-mask ventilation (odds ratio 2.70; 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 5.36), and noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio 3.96; 95% confidence interval 2.12 to 7.40) were associated with an increased risk of infection. All modalities of oxygen therapy generate air dispersion. CONCLUSION: Most modalities of oxygen therapy are associated with an increased risk of infection and none have been demonstrated as safe. The lowest flow of oxygen should be used to maintain an adequate oxygen saturation for patients with severe acute respiratory infection, and manipulation of oxygen delivery equipment should be minimized.

Review of infective dose, routes of transmission and outcome of COVID-19 caused by the SARS-COV-2: comparison with other respiratory viruses.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is pandemic. Prevention and control strategies require an improved understanding of SARS-CoV-2 dynamics. We did a rapid review of the literature on SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics with a focus on infective dose. We sought comparisons of SARS-CoV-2 with other respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. We examined laboratory animal and human studies. The literature on infective dose, transmission and routes of exposure was limited specially in humans, and varying endpoints were used for measurement of infection. Despite variability in animal studies, there was some evidence that increased dose at exposure correlated with higher viral load clinically, and severe symptoms. Higher viral load measures did not reflect coronavirus disease 2019 severity. Aerosol transmission seemed to raise the risk of more severe respiratory complications in animals. An accurate quantitative estimate of the infective dose of SARS-CoV-2 in humans is not currently feasible and needs further research. Our review suggests that it is small, perhaps about 100 particles. Further work is also required on the relationship between routes of transmission, infective dose, co-infection and outcomes.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers: A Living Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are at risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. PURPOSE: To examine the burden of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV on HCWs and risk factors for infection, using rapid and living review methods. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases, including the WHO database of publications on coronavirus disease and the medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 27 March 2020, with ongoing surveillance through 24 April 2020), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Studies published in any language reporting incidence of or outcomes associated with coronavirus infections in HCWs and studies on the association between risk factors (demographic characteristics, role, exposures, environmental and administrative factors, and personal protective equipment [PPE] use) and HCW infections. New evidence will be incorporated on an ongoing basis by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; verification was done by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: 64 studies met inclusion criteria; 43 studies addressed burden of HCW infections (15 on SARS-CoV-2), and 34 studies addressed risk factors (3 on SARS-CoV-2). Health care workers accounted for a significant proportion of coronavirus infections and may experience particularly high infection incidence after unprotected exposures. Illness severity was lower than in non-HCWs. Depression, anxiety, and psychological distress were common in HCWs during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. The strongest evidence on risk factors was on PPE use and decreased infection risk. The association was most consistent for masks but was also observed for gloves, gowns, eye protection, and handwashing; evidence suggested a dose-response relationship. No study evaluated PPE reuse. Certain exposures (such as involvement in intubations, direct patient contact, or contact with bodily secretions) were associated with increased infection risk. Infection control training was associated with decreased risk. LIMITATION: There were few studies on risk factors for SARS-CoV-2, the studies had methodological limitations, and streamlined rapid review methods were used. CONCLUSION: Health care workers experience significant burdens from coronavirus infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Use of PPE and infection control training are associated with decreased infection risk, and certain exposures are associated with increased risk. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization.

SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) Current Pharmacotherapy for Mother and Infant.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), appeared in the United States over 1 year ago. This virus has a wide range of presentations, from being asymptomatic to causing severe acute respiratory syndrome, which can lead to death. It has led to a worldwide effort to find effective treatments, from repurposed medications to new discoveries, as well as the push to develop effective vaccines. As the race to fight this pandemic unfolds, this column provides what is currently available to combat this virus, how it has been utilized in the pregnant population, and what data have been made available about how these treatments affect fetal development and the neonate.

Estimation Without Representation: Early Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Seroprevalence Studies and the Path Forward.

The recent development and regulatory approval of a variety of serological assays indicating the presence of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has led to rapid and widespread implementation of seroprevalence studies. Accurate estimates of seroprevalence are needed to model transmission dynamics and estimate mortality rates. Furthermore, seroprevalence levels in a population help guide policy surrounding reopening efforts. The literature to date has focused heavily on issues surrounding the quality of seroprevalence tests and less on the sampling methods that ultimately drive the representativeness of resulting estimates. Seroprevalence studies based on convenience samples are being reported widely and extrapolated to larger populations for the estimation of total coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, comparisons of prevalence across geographic regions, and estimation of mortality rates. In this viewpoint, we discuss the pitfalls that can arise with the use of convenience samples and offer guidance for moving towards more representative and timely population estimates of COVID-19 seroprevalence.

Broad Cross-Species Infection of Cultured Cells by Bat HKU2-Related Swine Acute Diarrhea Syndrome Coronavirus and Identification of Its Replication in Murine Dendritic Cells In Vivo Highlight Its Potential for Diverse Interspecies Transmission.

Outbreaks of severe diarrhea in neonatal piglets in Guangdong, China, in 2017 resulted in the isolation and discovery of a novel swine enteric alphacoronavirus (SeACoV) derived from the species Rhinolophus bat coronavirus HKU2 (Y. Pan, X. Tian, P. Qin, B. Wang, et al., Vet Microbiol 211:15-21, 2017). SeACoV was later referred to as swine acute diarrhea syndrome CoV (SADS-CoV) by another group (P. Zhou, H. Fan, T. Lan, X.-L. Yang, et al., Nature 556:255-258, 2018). The present study was set up to investigate the potential species barriers of SADS-CoV in vitro and in vivo We first demonstrated that SADS-CoV possesses a broad species tropism and is able to infect cell lines from diverse species, including bats, mice, rats, gerbils, hamsters, pigs, chickens, nonhuman primates, and humans. Trypsin contributes to but is not essential for SADS-CoV propagation in vitro Furthermore, C57BL/6J mice were inoculated with the virus via oral or intraperitoneal routes. Although the mice exhibited only subclinical infection, they supported viral replication and prolonged infection in the spleen. SADS-CoV nonstructural proteins and double-stranded RNA were detected in splenocytes of the marginal zone on the edge of lymphatic follicles, indicating active replication of SADS-CoV in the mouse model. We identified that splenic dendritic cells (DCs) are the major targets of virus infection by immunofluorescence and flow cytometry approaches. Finally, we demonstrated that SADS-CoV does not utilize known CoV receptors for cellular entry. The ability of SADS-CoV to replicate in various cells lines from a broad range of species and the unexpected tropism for murine DCs provide important insights into the biology of this bat-origin CoV, highlighting its possible ability to cross interspecies barriers.IMPORTANCE Infections with bat-origin coronaviruses (CoVs) (severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV [SARS-CoV] and Middle East respiratory syndrome CoV [MERS-CoV]) have caused severe illness in humans after "host jump" events. Recently, a novel bat-HKU2-like CoV named swine acute diarrhea syndrome CoV (SADS-CoV) has emerged in southern China, causing lethal diarrhea in newborn piglets. It is important to assess the species barriers of SADS-CoV infection since the animal hosts (other than pigs and bats) and zoonotic potential are still unknown. An in vitro susceptibility study revealed a broad species tropism of SADS-CoV, including various rodent and human cell lines. We established a mouse model of SADS-CoV infection, identifying its active replication in splenic dendritic cells, which suggests that SADS-CoV has the potential to infect rodents. These findings highlight the potential cross-species transmissibility of SADS-CoV, although further surveillance in other animal populations is needed to fully understand the ecology of this bat-HKU2-origin CoV.

Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks.

Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted on the COVID-19 outbreak, which together with the SRs on previous coronavirus outbreaks, form important sources of evidence for clinical decision and policy making. Here, we investigated the methodological quality of SRs on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Online searches were performed to obtain SRs on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. In total, of 49 SRs that were finally included in our study, 17, 16, and 16 SRs were specifically on COVID-19, MERS, and SARS, respectively. The growth rate of SRs on COVID-19 was the highest (4.54/month) presently. Of the included SRs, 6, 12, and 31 SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. SRs on SARS showed the optimum quality among the SRs on the three diseases. Subgroup analyses showed that the SR topic (P < .001), the involvement of a methodologist (P < .001), and funding support (P = .046) were significantly associated with the methodological quality of the SR. According to the adherence scores, adherence to AMSTAR-2 items sequentially decreased in SRs on SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The methodological quality of most SRs on coronavirus outbreaks is unsatisfactory, and those on COVID-19 have higher risks of poor quality, despite the rapid actions taken to conduct SRs. The quality of SRs should be improved in the future. Readers must exercise caution in accepting and using the results of these SRs.

The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2 may play a role in the respiratory failure of COVID-19 patients.

Following the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), another highly pathogenic coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 (previously known as 2019-nCoV) emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and rapidly spreads around the world. This virus shares highly homological sequence with SARS-CoV, and causes acute, highly lethal pneumonia coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with clinical symptoms similar to those reported for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The most characteristic symptom of patients with COVID-19 is respiratory distress, and most of the patients admitted to the intensive care could not breathe spontaneously. Additionally, some patients with COVID-19 also showed neurologic signs, such as headache, nausea, and vomiting. Increasing evidence shows that coronaviruses are not always confined to the respiratory tract and that they may also invade the central nervous system inducing neurological diseases. The infection of SARS-CoV has been reported in the brains from both patients and experimental animals, where the brainstem was heavily infected. Furthermore, some coronaviruses have been demonstrated able to spread via a synapse-connected route to the medullary cardiorespiratory center from the mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors in the lung and lower respiratory airways. Considering the high similarity between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV2, it remains to make clear whether the potential invasion of SARS-CoV2 is partially responsible for the acute respiratory failure of patients with COVID-19. Awareness of this may have a guiding significance for the prevention and treatment of the SARS-CoV-2-induced respiratory failure.

From SARS and MERS CoVs to SARS-CoV-2: Moving toward more biased codon usage in viral structural and nonstructural genes.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging disease with fatal outcomes. In this study, a fundamental knowledge gap question is to be resolved by evaluating the differences in biological and pathogenic aspects of SARS-CoV-2 and the changes in SARS-CoV-2 in comparison with the two prior major COV epidemics, SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses. METHODS: The genome composition, nucleotide analysis, codon usage indices, relative synonymous codons usage, and effective number of codons (ENc) were analyzed in the four structural genes; Spike (S), Envelope (E), membrane (M), and Nucleocapsid (N) genes, and two of the most important nonstructural genes comprising RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2, Beta-CoV from pangolins, bat SARS, MERS, and SARS CoVs. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 prefers pyrimidine rich codons to purines. Most high-frequency codons were ending with A or T, while the low frequency and rare codons were ending with G or C. SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins showed 5 to 20 lower ENc values, compared with SARS, bat SARS, and MERS CoVs. This implies higher codon bias and higher gene expression efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins. SARS-CoV-2 encoded the highest number of over-biased and negatively biased codons. Pangolin Beta-CoV showed little differences with SARS-CoV-2 ENc values, compared with SARS, bat SARS, and MERS CoV. CONCLUSION: Extreme bias and lower ENc values of SARS-CoV-2, especially in Spike, Envelope, and Mpro genes, are suggestive for higher gene expression efficiency, compared with SARS, bat SARS, and MERS CoVs.

Unique epidemiological and clinical features of the emerging 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) implicate special control measures.

By 27 February 2020, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused 82 623 confirmed cases and 2858 deaths globally, more than severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (8273 cases, 775 deaths) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) (1139 cases, 431 deaths) caused in 2003 and 2013, respectively. COVID-19 has spread to 46 countries internationally. Total fatality rate of COVID-19 is estimated at 3.46% by far based on published data from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC). Average incubation period of COVID-19 is around 6.4 days, ranges from 0 to 24 days. The basic reproductive number (R0 ) of COVID-19 ranges from 2 to 3.5 at the early phase regardless of different prediction models, which is higher than SARS and MERS. A study from China CDC showed majority of patients (80.9%) were considered asymptomatic or mild pneumonia but released large amounts of viruses at the early phase of infection, which posed enormous challenges for containing the spread of COVID-19. Nosocomial transmission was another severe problem. A total of 3019 health workers were infected by 12 February 2020, which accounted for 3.83% of total number of infections, and extremely burdened the health system, especially in Wuhan. Limited epidemiological and clinical data suggest that the disease spectrum of COVID-19 may differ from SARS or MERS. We summarize latest literatures on genetic, epidemiological, and clinical features of COVID-19 in comparison to SARS and MERS and emphasize special measures on diagnosis and potential interventions. This review will improve our understanding of the unique features of COVID-19 and enhance our control measures in the future.

The "Three Italy" of the COVID-19 epidemic and the possible involvement of SARS-CoV-2 in triggering complications other than pneumonia.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), first reported in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei, China, has been associated to a novel coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the SARS-CoV-2 infection a global pandemic. Soon after, the number of cases soared dramatically, spreading across China and worldwide. Italy has had 12,462 confirmed cases according to the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) as of March 11, and after the "lockdown" of the entire territory, by May 4, 209,254 cases of COVID-19 and 26,892 associated deaths have been reported. We performed a review to describe, in particular, the origin and the diffusion of COVID-19 in Italy, underlying how the geographical circulation has been heterogeneous and the importance of pathophysiology in the involvement of cardiovascular and neurological clinical manifestations.

COVID-19 virus may have neuroinvasive potential and cause neurological complications: a perspective review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported at the end of 2019 in China for the first time and has rapidly spread throughout the world as a pandemic. Since COVID-19 causes mild to severe acute respiratory syndrome, most studies in this field have only focused on different aspects of pathogenesis in the respiratory system. However, evidence suggests that COVID-19 may affect the central nervous system (CNS). Given the outbreak of COVID-19, it seems necessary to perform investigations on the possible neurological complications in patients who suffered from COVID-19. Here, we reviewed the evidence of the neuroinvasive potential of coronaviruses and discussed the possible pathogenic processes in CNS infection by COVID-19 to provide a precise insight for future studies.

Shell disorder analysis predicts greater resilience of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outside the body and in body fluids.

The coronavirus (CoV) family consists of viruses that infects a variety of animals including humans with various levels of respiratory and fecal-oral transmission levels depending on the behavior of the viruses' natural hosts and optimal viral fitness. A model to classify and predict the levels of respective respiratory and fecal-oral transmission potentials of the various viruses was built before the outbreak of MERS-CoV using AI and empirically-based molecular tools to predict the disorder level of proteins. Using the percentages of intrinsic disorder (PID) of the nucleocapsid (N) and membrane (M) proteins of CoV, the model easily clustered the viruses into three groups with the SARS-CoV (M PID = 8%, N PID = 50%) falling into Category B, in which viruses have intermediate levels of both respiratory and fecal-oral transmission potentials. Later, MERS-CoV (M PID = 9%, N PID = 44%) was found to be in Category C, which consists of viruses with lower respiratory transmission potential but with higher fecal-oral transmission capabilities. Based on the peculiarities of disorder distribution, the SARS-CoV-2 (M PID = 6%, N PID = 48%) has to be placed in Category B. Our data show however, that the SARS-CoV-2 is very strange with one of the hardest protective outer shell, (M PID = 6%) among coronaviruses. This means that it might be expected to be highly resilient in saliva or other body fluids and outside the body. An infected body is likelier to shed greater numbers of viral particles since the latter is more resistant to antimicrobial enzymes in body fluids. These particles are also likelier to remain active longer. These factors could account for the greater contagiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 and have implications for efforts to prevent its spread.

Bayesian inference of transmission chains using timing of symptoms, pathogen genomes and contact data.

There exists significant interest in developing statistical and computational tools for inferring 'who infected whom' in an infectious disease outbreak from densely sampled case data, with most recent studies focusing on the analysis of whole genome sequence data. However, genomic data can be poorly informative of transmission events if mutations accumulate too slowly to resolve individual transmission pairs or if there exist multiple pathogens lineages within-host, and there has been little focus on incorporating other types of outbreak data. We present here a methodology that uses contact data for the inference of transmission trees in a statistically rigorous manner, alongside genomic data and temporal data. Contact data is frequently collected in outbreaks of pathogens spread by close contact, including Ebola virus (EBOV), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB), and routinely used to reconstruct transmission chains. As an improvement over previous, ad-hoc approaches, we developed a probabilistic model that relates a set of contact data to an underlying transmission tree and integrated this in the outbreaker2 inference framework. By analyzing simulated outbreaks under various contact tracing scenarios, we demonstrate that contact data significantly improves our ability to reconstruct transmission trees, even under realistic limitations on the coverage of the contact tracing effort and the amount of non-infectious mixing between cases. Indeed, contact data is equally or more informative than fully sampled whole genome sequence data in certain scenarios. We then use our method to analyze the early stages of the 2003 SARS outbreak in Singapore and describe the range of transmission scenarios consistent with contact data and genetic sequence in a probabilistic manner for the first time. This simple yet flexible model can easily be incorporated into existing tools for outbreak reconstruction and should permit a better integration of genomic and epidemiological data for inferring transmission chains.