Table 1. The 59 animals whose ACE2 proteins are shown to be effective or less effective for SARS-CoV-2 entry by natural infection and/or experimental studies.
The table is organized by ranking the binding energy from low to high.
| Index | Animal name | Binding energy (EEU)a | ACE2 usageb | Experimental evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sumatran orangutan | −56.21 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 2 | Western gorilla | −55.84 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 3 | Olive baboon | −55.77 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 4 | Silvery gibbon | −55.73 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 5 | Crab-eating macaque | −55.38 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 6 | Gelada | −55.29 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 7 | Rhesus macaque | −55.24 | Y | In vitro [35], in vivo [27, 28] |
| 8 | Human | −55.16 | Y | Natural [2, 58] |
| 9 | Golden snub-nosed monkey | −55.09 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 10 | Chimpanzee | −54.97 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 11 | Ugandan red colobus | −54.79 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 12 | Golden hamster | −53.84 | Y | In vitro [35], in vivo [25] |
| 13 | Chinese hamster | −53.77 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 14 | Steller sea lion | −53.47 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 15 | Horse | −52.95 | Y | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 16 | Amur tiger | −52.93 | Y | Natural [59] |
| 17 | Goat | −52.86 | Y | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 18 | Rabbit | −52.84 | Y | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 19 | Wild yak | −52.83 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 20 | Puma | −52.79 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 21 | Leopard | −52.74 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 22 | Cattle | −52.71 | Y | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 23 | Hawaiian monk seal | −52.56 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 24 | Ferret | −52.55 | Y | In vitro [35], in vivo [20, 24]; |
| 25 | California sea lion | −52.53 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 26 | Water buffalo | −52.45 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 27 | Lesser egyptian jerboa | −52.44 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 28 | Cat | −52.33 | Y | In vitro [7, 35], in vivo [20], natural [21] |
| 29 | Canada lynx | −52.21 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 30 | Giant panda | −52.21 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 31 | White-footed mouse | −52.15 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 32 | Sheep | −52.09 | Y | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 33 | Beluga whale | −51.98 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 34 | Sperm whale | −51.94 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 35 | Polar bear | −51.93 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 36 | Yangtze finless porpoise | −51.85 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 37 | Malayan pangolin | −51.73 | Y | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 38 | Red fox | −51.58 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 39 | Dog | −51.38 | Y | In vitro [35], in vivo [20], natural [23] |
| 40 | Southern white rhinoceros | −51.08 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 41 | Pig | −50.74 | Y | In vitro [3, 7] |
| 42 | Arctic ground squirrel | −50.62 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 43 | Chinese rufous horseshoe bat | −49.91 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 44 | Bactrian camel | −49.88 | Y | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 45 | Killer whale | −49.47 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 46 | Long-finned pilot whale | −49.19 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 47 | Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphin | −49.05 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 48 | Yangtze river dolphin | −49.05 | Y | In vitro [35] |
| 49 | Masked palm civet | −47.97 | Y | In vitro [3, 7] |
| 50 | Malayan tiger | n.d. | Y | Natural [59] |
| 51 | African lion | n.d. | Y | Natural [59] |
| 52 | Mink | n.d. | Y | Natural [26] |
| 53 | Marmoset | −46.81 | N | In vitro [35], in vivo [28] |
| 54 | Black-capped squirrel monkey | −46.71 | N | In vitro [35] |
| 55 | Tufted capuchin | −46.13 | N | In vitro [35] |
| 56 | Brown rat | −43.14 | N | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 57 | House mouse | −42.62 | N | In vitro [7, 35] |
| 58 | Duck | −42.54 | N | In vivo [20] |
| 59 | Chicken | −42.07 | N | In vitro [7], in vivo [20] |
a:
The binding energy was not calculated for Malayan tiger, lion, and mink because their ACE2 proteins were not included in the list of 321 ACE2 orthologs. EEU stands for EvoEF2 energy unit.
b:
Y, effective ACE2 receptors; N, less effective ACE2 receptors. An ACE2 protein is classified as effective if at least one of the three kinds of experimental evidence holds.