Discovery of Highly Potent Fusion Inhibitors with Potential Pan-Coronavirus Activity That Effectively Inhibit Major COVID-19 Variants of Concern (VOCs) in Pseudovirus-Based Assays

  1. Francesca Curreli
  2. Shahad Ahmed
  3. Sofia M. B. Victor
  4. Aleksandra Drelich
  5. Siva S. Panda
  6. Andrea Altieri
  7. Alexander V. Kurkin
  8. Chien-Te K. Tseng
  9. Christopher D. Hillyer
  10. Asim K. Debnath

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We report the discovery of several highly potent small molecules with low-nM potency against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV; lowest half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50: 13 nM), SARS-CoV-2 (IC50: 23 nM), and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV; IC50: 76 nM) in pseudovirus-based assays with excellent selectivity index (SI) values (>5000), demonstrating potential pan-coronavirus inhibitory activities. Some compounds showed 100% inhibition against the cytopathic effects (CPE; IC100) of an authentic SARS-CoV-2 (US_WA-1/2020) variant at 1.25 µM. The most active inhibitors also potently inhibited variants of concern (VOCs), including the UK (B.1.1.7) and South African (B.1.351) variants and the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) originally identified in India in pseudovirus-based assay. Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) analysis with one potent inhibitor confirmed that it binds to the prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike protein trimer. These small-molecule inhibitors prevented virus-mediated cell–cell fusion. The absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) data for one of the most active inhibitors, NBCoV1, demonstrated drug-like properties. An in vivo pharmacokinetics (PK) study of NBCoV1 in rats demonstrated an excellent half-life (t1/2) of 11.3 h, a mean resident time (MRT) of 14.2 h, and oral bioavailability. We expect these lead inhibitors to facilitate the further development of preclinical and clinical candidates.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/v14010069
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.03.458877v2 on bioRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.03.458877: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.03.458877v1 on bioRxiv