Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2021 May 20;17(5):e1009576. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009576

DC/L-SIGN recognition of spike glycoprotein promotes SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection and can be inhibited by a glycomimetic antagonist

Michel Thépaut 1,#, Joanna Luczkowiak 2,#, Corinne Vivès 1, Nuria Labiod 2, Isabelle Bally 1, Fátima Lasala 2, Yasmina Grimoire 1, Daphna Fenel 1, Sara Sattin 3, Nicole Thielens 1, Guy Schoehn 1, Anna Bernardi 3, Rafael Delgado 2,*, Franck Fieschi 1,*
Editor: Andrew Pekosz4
PMCID: PMC8136665  PMID: 34015061

Abstract

The efficient spread of SARS-CoV-2 resulted in a unique pandemic in modern history. Despite early identification of ACE2 as the receptor for viral spike protein, much remains to be understood about the molecular events behind viral dissemination. We evaluated the contribution of C-type lectin receptors (CLRS) of antigen-presenting cells, widely present in respiratory mucosa and lung tissue. DC-SIGN, L-SIGN, Langerin and MGL bind to diverse glycans of the spike using multiple interaction areas. Using pseudovirus and cells derived from monocytes or T-lymphocytes, we demonstrate that while virus capture by the CLRs examined does not allow direct cell infection, DC/L-SIGN, among these receptors, promote virus transfer to permissive ACE2+ Vero E6 cells. A glycomimetic compound designed against DC-SIGN, enable inhibition of this process. These data have been then confirmed using authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus and human respiratory cell lines. Thus, we described a mechanism potentiating viral spreading of infection.

Author summary

For their infectious effectiveness, viruses often use host attachment factors to improve their adhesion to the cell surface. This will mainly increase viruses concentration at cell surfaces, potentiating access and final engagement with their real entry receptors. This mechanism enhances viral infection of target cells or even allow viruses to be captured by non-permissive cells for secondary presentation to permissive cells by a process called trans-infection. While, the entry mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 using the ACE2 entry receptor, is well defined, little is known about additional factors explaining the high transmission rate of this virus. The level of glycosylations on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein prompted us to assess whether CLRs of immune cells, regularly diverted by pathogens, could play a role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we show that these receptors are able to recognize Spike envelope protein of SARS-CoV-2 and two receptors among the four tested, DC-SIGN and L-SIGN, are able to promote virus trans-infection.

This work identifies a new family of alternative SARS-CoV-2 cell receptors involved in uncharacterized dissemination mechanism. Moreover, considering the role of CLRs in immunomodulation, their early involvement opens avenues for understanding the imbalanced innate immune response observed in COVID-19 pathogenesis.

Introduction

C-type Lectin Receptors (CLRs) are Pathogen Recognition Receptors (PRRs) involved in the detection of carbohydrate-based pathogen-associated molecular patterns by antigen-presenting cells (APCs), including macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs), and in the elaboration of the immune response [1,2]. Many innate immune cells express a wide variety of CLRs, which differ between cell types, allowing specific adjustments of the immune response upon target recognition. Thus, CLRs such as Dectin-2, Mincle, MGL (Macrophage galactose lectin), Langerin and DC-SIGN (Dendritic Cell-Specific Intercellular adhesion molecule-3-Grabbing Non-integrin) are major players in the recognition of pathogenic fungi, bacteria, parasites and viruses [36]. The interaction of these CLRs with their ligands allows DCs to modulate the immune response towards either activation or tolerance [7]. This is done through antigen presentation in lymphoid organs (primary mission of APCs) but also through the release of cytokines [8]. Thus, DCs have a major role in modulating the immune response from the early stages of infection. To fulfill their sentinel function, DCs are localized at and patrol the sites of first contact with a pathogen, such as epithelia and mucous interfaces, including the pulmonary and nasopharyngeal mucosae. Similarly, alveolar macrophages are found in the lung alveoli.

In this battle for infection, some pathogens have evolved strategies to circumvent the role of CLRs in activating immunity and even to divert CLRs to their benefit. Many enveloped viruses associate with CLRs and other host factors at the cell surface to facilitate the transfer towards their specific entry receptors that will trigger fusion of viral and host membranes. This kind of viral subversion has been reported for several CLRs, including L-SIGN (liver/lymph node-specific intracellular adhesion molecules-3 grabbing non-integrin, also called DC-SIGNR for DC-SIGN Related) and especially DC associated DC-SIGN, which promotes cis- and/or trans-infection of several viruses such as HIV, Cytomegalovirus, Dengue, Ebola and Zika [913]. In particular, DC-SIGN mediates direct HIV infection of DCs (cis-infection) and also induces trans-infection of T cells, the primary target of the virus [14], while in the case of Dengue and Ebola, DC-SIGN allows direct cis-infection of the receptor-carrying cells (Alvarez et al., 2002; Navarro-Sanchez et al., 2003). DC-SIGN and L-SIGN (herein after collectively referred to as DC/L-SIGN) have also been reported to be involved in the enhancement of SARS-CoV-1 infection [1517].

In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, attention is now focused on the SARS-CoV-2 virus [18,19]. Coronaviruses use a homotrimeric glycosylated spike (S) protein protruding from their viral envelope to interact with cell membranes and promote fusion upon proteolytic activation. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, a first cleavage occurs at the level of a furin site (S1/S2 site), generating two functional subunits S1 and S2 that remain complexed in a prefusion conformation in newly formed virus. S2 contains the fusion machinery of the virus, while the surface unit S1 contains the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and stabilizes S2 in its pre-fusion conformation. The S protein of both SARS-CoV-2 [1922] and SARS-CoV-1 [23] uses ACE2 (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2) as their entry receptor. For SARS-CoV-2 spike, interaction of its RBD with ACE2, as well as a second proteolytic cleavage at a S2’ site, triggers further irreversible conformational changes in S2. This will engage the viral fusion process [20].

The sequence of events around the S protein/ACE2 interaction are becoming increasingly clearer, but much remains to be unraveled about additional factors facilitating the infection such as SARS-CoV-2 delivery to the ACE2 receptor. Indeed, S proteins from both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 have identical affinity for ACE2 [22], but show very different transmission rates [24]. We posit that the enhanced transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 relative to SARS-CoV-1 [25] might result from an efficient viral adhesion through host-cell attachment factors, which may promote efficient infection of ACE2+ cells. This type of mechanism is frequently exploited by viruses to concentrate and scan cell surface for their receptor [26]. Additionally, in the case of SARS-CoV-2, a new paradigm is needed to untangle the complex clinical picture, resulting in a vast range of possible symptoms and in a spectrum of disease severity associated on one hand with active viral replication and cell infection through interaction with ACE2 along the respiratory tract, and, on the other hand, to the development of excessive immune activation, i.e. the so called “cytokine storm”, that is related to additional tissue damage and potential fatal outcomes [27].

In this framework, C-type lectin PRRs and the APCs displaying them, i.e. DCs and macrophages, can play a role both as viral attachment factors and in immune activation. Thus, we focused on DC-SIGN and L-SIGN because of their involvement in SARS-CoV-1 infections [1517]. L-SIGN is expressed in type II alveolar cells of human lungs as well as in endothelial cells and was identified as a cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-1 S glycoprotein [15]. DC-SIGN was also characterized as a SARS-CoV-1 S protein receptor [16] able to enhance cell entry by DC transfer to ACE2+ pneumocytes [17].

Recent thorough glycan and structural analyses comparing both SARS-CoV-1/2 spike glycoproteins have shown that glycosylation is mostly conserved in the two proteins, both in position and nature of the glycans exposed [2830], creating a glycan shield which complicates neutralization by antibodies. Secondly, elegant molecular dynamic simulations suggested how some of the spike glycans may directly modulate the dynamics of the interaction with ACE2, stabilizing the up conformation of the RBD domain [31,32]. Finally, and yet unexplored, spike glycans may contribute to infectivity by acting as anchor points for DC-SIGN and L-SIGN on host cells surfaces. Indeed, oligomannose-type glycans could therefore constitute ligands for CLRs and notably for DC-SIGN and L-SIGN. This argues also for the potential use of these CLRs by SARS-CoV-2, as does SARS-CoV-1. Additionally, some mutations modulating SARS-CoV-2 transmission have an impact on the glycosylation level of the spike. As an example, the D614G mutation has been reported as potentially increasing glycosylation at neighboring asparagine 616 [3335]. A recent proteomic profiling study pointed to DC-SIGN as a mediator of genetic risk in COVID-19 [36] and finally DC/L-SIGN expression is induced by proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-4, IL-6, IL-10 and IL-13, known to be overexpressed in severe SARS and COVID-19 cases [37,38]. These observations prompted us to investigate the potential interaction of CLRs, notably DC/L-SIGN with SARS-CoV-2, through glycan recognition of the spike envelope glycoprotein, as well at their potential role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Results

Production and stabilization of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein

In order to accurately analyze the interaction properties of the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 with CLRs, we expressed and purified recombinant spike protein using an expression system well-characterized in terms of its site-specific glycosylation. We used here the construct that was used 1) to obtain the cryo-electron microscopy structure [30] and 2) for extensive characterization of glycan distribution on the spike surface [28]. The spike protein was purified exploiting its 8xHis tag, followed by a Superose size exclusion chromatography (SEC). SEC chromatogram deconvolution allowed to select the best fractions (Fig 1B). SDS-PAGE analysis confirmed protein purity and differences in migration after reduction supported the presence of expected disulfide bridges and thus proper folding (Fig 1A). Furthermore, sample quality and trimeric assembly were confirmed by 2D class averages of the spike obtained from negatively stained sample observed under the electron microscope (Fig 1C). This construct contains “2P” stabilizing mutations at residues 986 and 987 [39], an inactivated furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 interface, and a C-terminal sequence optimizing trimerization [30]. Nonetheless, we observed a limited stability over a week time scale at 4°C that was overcome by increasing the ionic strength of the storage buffer up to 500 mM NaCl, effectively preserving the trimeric state at 4°C at least for three weeks (Fig 1D–1G). This “high-salt” concentration does not modify the structural properties of the protein as shown by identical elution profiles in SEC (Fig 1B); in addition, negative-stain EM images are better in “high-salt” conditions (Fig 1D and 1F).

Fig 1. Production and optimization of spike protein.

Fig 1

(A) SDS-PAGE analysis of 2 μg purified SARS-Cov-2 S protein; non-reduced and reduced, NR and R, respectively. (B) SEC Chromatograms of SARS-CoV-2 spike using buffer with 150 mM NaCl (green line), 375 mM NaCl (blue line) and 500 mM NaCl (thick red line). Manual deconvolution of gel filtration chromatogram at 500 mM NaCl: principal peak (thin red line) and contaminants (dashed red line). Collected fractions are represented by the grey area. (C) Classification of 2543 particles of SARS-Cov-2 spike after the purification step on HisTrap HP column, using Relion (auto-picking mode). (D) to (G) Quality control of SARS-CoV-2 S protein performed by negative staining Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) using uranyl acetate as stain (2% w/v). Scale bar is 50 nm. (D) and (E) Sample produced in 150 mM NaCl buffer, day of production and after 17 days at 4°C, respectively. (F) and (G) Sample produced in 500 mM NaCl buffer, day of production and after 22 days at 4°C, respectively.

Several C-type lectin receptors interact with SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein

DC-SIGN and L-SIGN have been described as receptor of SARS-CoV-1 and twenty out of the twenty-two SARS-CoV-2 S protein N-linked glycosylation sequons are conserved. Glycan shielding represent 60 to 90% of the spike surface considering the head or the stalk of the S ectodomain, respectively [31,40,41]. One third of N-glycans of SARS-CoV-2 spike are of the oligomannose type [28] and thus common ligands for DC-SIGN and L-SIGN, as well as for Langerin, a CLR of Langerhans cells, a subset of tissue-resident DCs of the skin, also present in mouth and vaginal mucosae [42].

SPR interaction experiments were performed with the various CLRs with immobilized SARS-CoV-2 S proteins. First, a S protein functionalized surface was generated using a standard procedure for covalent amine coupling onto the surface. The functionalization degree of this "non-oriented" surface depends upon the number of solvent exposed lysine residues (Fig 2A), which may be severely restricted by the glycan shield discussed above. Such restricted protein orientation could preclude the accessibility of some specific N-glycan clusters, located close to the linkage site and the sensor surface, thus hampering recognition by the oligomeric CLRs tested. To overcome these limitations, we devised and generated a so-called “oriented surface” where the S protein is captured via its C-terminal StrepTagII extremities onto a Streptactin functionalized surface (Fig 2B). In this set-up, no lateral parts of the S protein are attached to, and thus masked by, the sensor surface. Moreover, in the “oriented surface” set-up the spike protein is presented as it would be at the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which might better reflect the physiological interaction with host receptors. Hence, the "non-oriented" surface set up one may favor access to N-glycans of the spike’s stalk domain while the “oriented" one may favor access to N-glycans of the head domain.

Fig 2. CLRs interaction with SARS-CoV-2 S protein.

Fig 2

(A) Covalently functionalized S protein surface in random orientation. Multivalent CLRs oligomeric ectodomains (ECDs) are injected over the surface. From left to right, surfaces titrations were performed with ECDs of DC-SIGN, L-SIGN and MGL. (B) Oriented surface set-up. Surfaces were first functionalized with streptactin (in green) and then S protein was captured by its C-terminal double-StrepTagII. From left to right, surfaces titrations were performed with ECDs of DC-SIGN, L-SIGN and Langerin. The same color code for concentrations of all CLR-ECDs has been used for all panels. Concentrations injected (i.e. DC-SIGN ECD in A) range from 50 μM to 0.1 μM by 2-fold serial dilutions (decreasing concentrations from top to bottom). The red sensorgram, lower flat line, corresponds to control experiments with buffer injection with no CLR.

On the CLRs side, we tested exclusively recombinant constructs corresponding to the extracellular domains (ECD), containing both their carbohydrate recognition domain (CRD) and their oligomerization domain. Thus, the specific topological presentation of their CRD as well as their oligomeric status is preserved for each of the CLR, going from tetramers for DC-SIGN and L-SIGN to trimers for MGL and Langerin, ensuring interactions with avidity properties as close as possible to the physiological conditions for each CLR [4346].

DC-SIGN and L-SIGN recognized the spike with the same profile on both surfaces (Fig 2A and 2B). Langerin, tested on the oriented surface, was found to interact with the S protein in agreement with the presence of oligomannose-type glycans (Fig 2B) while MGL, a lectin that specifically recognizes glycans bearing terminal Gal or GalNAc residues, interacted with the S protein in the “non-oriented” set-up (Fig 2A). This shows that complex N-glycans may also serve as potential anchors for the SARS-CoV-2 S protein to cell surface CLRs.

While all CLRs tested interacted with the spike, the interactions observed are not all equivalent. Unfortunately, the complexity of the process involving probably multiple binding sites per oligomeric CLR prevented a kinetic fitting using classical kinetic models, which precluded the determination of kinetic rate constants. Nevertheless, an apparent equilibrium dissociation constant (KD) could be obtained by steady state fitting for DC-SIGN, L-SIGN and MGL. For Langerin, despite a longer injection time, a much higher range of concentration would have been required to reach the equilibrium and accurately evaluate an apparent KD. DC/L-SIGN and MGL showed affinities in the μM range, from around 2 to 10 μM (Table 1), depending on the CLR and the surface type, while Langerin has an affinity of at least one order of magnitude lower. Despite the impossibility to evaluate kinetic association and dissociation rate constants (kon and koff), visual inspection of the sensorgrams clearly reveals different behaviors between DC-SIGN and L-SIGN independent of the surface set-up. While association and dissociation seem to be very fast for DC-SIGN, L-SIGN sensorgrams suggest a much slower association and dissociation rate that compensate each other to provide a KD similar to that of DC-SIGN. However, while the higher kon value for DC-SIGN argues for a faster formation of the DC-SIGN/S protein complex, the lower koff value for L-SIGN suggests that the L-SIGN/S-protein complex might be more stable.

Table 1. Steady state determination of apparent KD for CLRs interaction with SARS-CoV-2 S protein.

DC-SIGN L-SIGN MGL Langerin
μM μM μM
Non-oriented 11.90 ± 4.6 1.80 ± 0.12 7 ± 1.5 -
Oriented 4.33 ± 0.7 1.66 ± 0.12 - n.d.

Values reported results from steady state fitting of titration experiments as shown in Fig 2. They are the average from 2 to 4 independent measurements with different S protein preparations.

Finally, for DC-SIGN and L-SIGN, which have been tested both on “non-oriented” and “oriented” S surface, no obvious differences have been observed in the interaction sensorgrams. This suggests that the interaction is not restricted to a limited glycan cluster, but rather that oligomannose-type glycans are multiple, accessible and distributed over the whole S protein.

DC-SIGN forms multiple complexes with SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein

The SPR interaction analysis argues for multiple potential binding sites for CLRs on the S protein. Such initial host adhesion mechanism could be essential for efficient viral capture, viral particles concentration on the cell surface and subsequent enhanced ACE2 targeting and infection. Negative stain electron microscopy was used to visualize potential DC-SIGN/S protein complexes.

Extemporaneously after a fresh purification of S protein, SEC fractions corresponding to the pure trimeric spike were mixed with a DC-SIGN ECD preparation in a molecular ratio 1:3 (1 trimeric spike for 3 tetrameric DC-SIGN ECD). In order to enrich the proportion of complex in the sample for EM observation, we reinjected this mix onto the same SEC column and recovered eluted fractions corresponding to higher molecular weight, and thus potentially to DC-SIGN/S protein complex (S1 Fig). These fractions were immediately used to prepare negatively stained electron microscopy grid (Fig 3). Fig 3A and 3B show control images of the DC-SIGN and spike sample used and images of the sample corresponding to the enriched complexes are shown in Fig 3C where DC-SIGN/S complexes can be clearly seen. Most images show a 1:1 complex but, in some cases, (Fig 3C, left) at least two molecules of DC-SIGN interacting with the spike protein can be detected. Even if it is not possible to precisely define the interacting region on the spike protein, several areas seem to be involved in the interaction with DC-SIGN.

Fig 3. Electron Microscopy micrographs of DC-SIGN/S protein complexes.

Fig 3

(A) DC-SIGN. Top: model of DC-SIGN ECD tetramer adapted from Tabarani et al (2009). Bottom: Negative staining images of DC-SIGN. Top row: original images; bottom row: Photoshop processed images. (B) Spike protein. Top: model of the glycosylated Spike adapted from model of Casalino et al and pdb 6vsb. Glycan sites are represented with color code derived from the work of Crispin et coll. [28], according to oligomannose-type glycan content, in green (80–100%), orange (30–79%) and magenta (0–29%). Bottom: Negative staining images of spike protein. Top row: original images, bottom row: Photoshop processed images. (C) Complex between DC-SIGN and spike protein. Negative staining image of the complexes between DC-SIGN and spike protein. The white arrows highlight DC-SIGN molecules. Top row: original images; bottom row: Photoshop processed images. In all cases the scale bar represents 25 nm.

Antigen-Presenting Cells expressing DC-SIGN, MDDCs and M2-MDM are not infected by SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirions

To study the role of DC/L-SIGN in SARS-CoV-2 infection, VSV/SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped viruses were firstly used for direct infection of primary monocyte-derived cells, including monocyte-derived DCs (MDDCs) and M2 monocyte-derived macrophages (M2-MDM), that have been shown to express DC-SIGN. As a control, VSV/EBOV-GP pseudotypes, expected to display enhanced infection in the presence of DC/L-SIGN receptor was used as well as VSV/VSV-G as a DC/L-SIGN independent pseudotype. To evaluate the infection mediated exclusively by DC/L-SIGN receptor on primary monocyte-derived cells we also examined the infection with these three pseudotypes in the presence of anti-DC/L-SIGN antibody.

VSV/SARS-CoV-2 did not infect MDDCs or M2-MDMs, despite DC-SIGN expression (Fig 4A). As expected, both primary cell lines were efficiently infected with VSV/EBOV-GP and this infection could be substantially blocked by an antibody targeting DC-SIGN. Infection of primary cells with EBOV does not exclusively depend on the presence of DC-SIGN on the cell surface, since other receptors are also responsible for the direct infection with EBOV [47] which explains the residual infection observed in the presence of an anti-DC/L-SIGN. DC-SIGN-mediated cis-infection was clearly blocked with anti-DC/L-SIGN in the case of MDDCs (92.5% inhibition of infection), followed by M2-MDM (68.4% inhibition). VSV/VSV-G also showed a great infectivity of all primary cell lines. However, this infection was DC-SIGN independent, since anti-DC-SIGN antibodies did not impact the infection level (Fig 4A).

Fig 4. SARS-CoV-2 cis- and trans-infection of monocytes-derived antigen presenting cells.

Fig 4

(A) Direct infection of primary cells: monocyte-derived dendritic cells (MDDCs), and M2 monocyte-derived macrophages (M2-MDM) with SARS-CoV-2, EBOV-GP and VSV-G pseudovirions. Bars represent mean ± SEM of mean of two independent experiments with cells from different donors performed in duplicates. Individual results are presented as scattered dot plot. As a control of inhibition of infection mediated by DC-SIGN, anti-DC-SIGN Ab was used. (B) MDDCs trans-infection of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirions onto Vero E6 cells. Bars represent mean ± SEM of three independent experiments with cells from different donors performed in duplicates. Individual results are presented as scattered dot plot. As a control of inhibition of trans-infection mediated by DC-SIGN, anti-DC-SIGN Ab was used. Infection values are expressed as Relative Light Units (RLUs). Statistical significance was calculated by t-test.

MDDCs promote DC-SIGN-mediated trans-infection of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirions

With other viruses, DC/L-SIGN are known to enhance viral uptake for direct infection in the process referred to as cis-infection or to allow subsequent transfer to susceptible cells in the process recognized as trans-infection [9,11]. To study the potential function of DC/L-SIGN in SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection, MDDCs were incubated with VSV/SARS-CoV-2 and placed onto susceptible Vero E6 cells, the reference ACE2+ cell line for SARS-CoV-2 cell culture [19]. Interestingly, DC-SIGN promoted efficient SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection from MDDC to Vero E6 (Fig 4B). An anti-DC-SIGN antibody could reduce substantially the infectivity observed (98% inhibition), confirming the role of this CLR in the process of SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection.

DC/L-SIGN but not Langerin mediate trans-infection of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirions in a T-lymphocyte cell line

The role of DC/L-SIGN and Langerin in SARS-CoV-2 infection was also examined in Jurkat cells (a T-lymphocyte cell line lacking ACE2 expression). Parental Jurkat cell line, which does not express DC-SIGN, was used as control of infectivity along with Jurkats stably expressing DC/L-SIGN and Langerin [9]. VSV/VSV-G pseudovirions were used in parallel. VSV-G cell entry is independent of the presence of CLRs and can efficiently infect Jurkat cells. Direct infection assay with VSV/SARS-CoV-2 showed no infectivity of any of the cell lines tested, Jurkat, Jurkat DC-SIGN and Jurkat L-SIGN (Fig 5A), indicating that DC/L-SIGN do not function as direct receptors for SARS-CoV-2. The use of DC/L-SIGN and Langerin by SARS-CoV-2 was further verified in trans-infection assays using Jurkat, Jurkat DC-SIGN, Jurkat L-SIGN and Jurkat Langerin cells. VSV/EBOV-GP trans-infection based on Jurkat cells is absolutely dependent on the presence of DC/L-SIGN or Langerin on the cell surface, since EBOV does not infect T-lymphocytes [48]. On the other hand, VSV/VSV-G is DC/L-SIGN or Langerin independent. Jurkat, Jurkat DC-SIGN, Jurkat L-SIGN and Jurkat Langerin cells were incubated with VSV-based pseudotypes and co-incubated upon susceptible Vero E6 cells monolayers. Similarly, to the results obtained with primary cells, we observed that DC/L-SIGN, but not Langerin, promoted efficient SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection of Vero E6 (Fig 5B). Anti-DC/L-SIGN antibodies could significantly reduce DC/L-SIGN-mediated trans-infection (86.7% and 78.7% inhibition, respectively) confirming the important role of these receptors in the SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection process.

Fig 5. Impact of DC/L SIGN and Langerin in cis- and trans-infection of VSV/SARS-CoV-2.

Fig 5

(A) Direct infection of Jurkat, Jurkat DC-SIGN and Jurkat L-SIGN with SARS-CoV-2 and VSV pseudovirus. (B) Trans-infection using Jurkat cell with or without CLRs DC-SIGN, L-SIGN and Langerin with SARS-CoV-2, EBOV and VSV pseudovirions on Vero E6 cells. As a control of inhibition of trans-infection mediated by CLRs, Ab specifically directed toward the corresponding CLR were used. (C) Trans-infection ratio of Jurkat DC-SIGN or Jurkat L-SIGN versus Jurkat cells with SARS-CoV-2, EBOV and VSV pseudovirions on Vero E6 cells. Bars represent mean ± SEM of mean of two independent experiments performed in triplicates. Individual results are presented as scattered dot plot. Infection values from luciferase assays are expressed as Relative Light Units (RLUs) and ratios represents RLUs obtained by trans-infection with Jurkats expressing CLRs divided by those obtained from parental Jurkats. Statistical significance was calculated in panel B by t-test (*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001).

Interestingly, no trans-infection was observed using Jurkat Langerin cells (Fig 5B). As expected, VSV/EBOV-GP achieved high DC/L-SIGN-mediated trans-infection which could be blocked by anti-DC/L-SIGN antibody (96.9% and 97.3% inhibition of infection respectively). VSV/EBOV-G uses Langerin as an attachment factor for trans-infection and this process could be partially blocked by anti-Langerin antibody (57.2% inhibition of infection). On the other hand, VSV/VSV-G does not use CLRs for trans-infection, thus no transmitted infection was detected in Vero E6 cells. The ratio of trans-infection mediated by DC/L-SIGN was calculated for VSV/SARS-CoV-2, VSV/EBOV-GP and VSV/VSV-G using the parental Jurkat cell line as reference. The ratio of VSV/SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection using Jurkat DC-SIGN and Jurkat L-SIGN was 408X and 680X respectively. VSV/EBOV-GP trans-infection ratio was 73X for Jurkat DC-SIGN and 549X for Jurkat L-SIGN (Fig 5C).

DC-SIGN binding to the S protein and DC-SIGN-dependent trans-infection are inhibited by a known glycomimetic ligand of DC-SIGN (PM26)

Polyman26 (PM26, Fig 6A) is a multivalent glycomimetic mannoside tailored for optimal interaction with DC-SIGN [49]. It is known to bind DC-SIGN carbohydrate recognition domain (CRD), eliciting a Th-1 type response from human immature monocyte derived dendritic cells [50]. It also inhibits DC-SIGN mediated HIV infection of CD8+ T lymphocytes with an IC50 of 24 nM [49].

Fig 6. PM26, a specific antagonist of DC-SIGN, can inhibit DC-SIGN/S protein interaction and trans-infection of VSV/SARS-CoV-2.

Fig 6

(A) Structure of Polyman26 (PM26). (B) Sensorgrams of DC-SIGN/S protein interaction inhibition by a range of PM26 concentration. DC-SIGN is injected at the constant concentration of 20 μM, PM26 is co-injected at decreasing concentration going from 50 μM to 0.1 μM. S protein is presented in an oriented mode in the experiment presented here. (C) PM26 inhibition curve of the DC-SIGN/spike interaction using two independent oriented (blue, and green) or non-oriented spike surface (red) set up as described in Fig 2. The blue curve of inhibition derives from the sensorgrams presented in (B). Sensorgrams corresponding to the two others inhibitions curves are presented in the S2 Fig. (D) Inhibition of trans-infection of Jurkat DC-SIGN with SARS-CoV-2-pseudotyped rVSV-luc. Bars correspond to mean ± SEM of triplicates from an experiment of inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection. Results are presented as percentage of SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection in the presence of PM26 as compared to trans-infection of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero E6 mediated by Jurkat DC-SIGN without addition of any compound. Trans-infection bar for Jurkat DC-SIGN established as 100% of the trans-infection correspond to the mean of triplicates of SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection by Jurkat DC-SIGN without addition of any compound.SARS-CoV-2-pseudotyped rVSV-luc was used at MOI: 1. Individual results are presented as scattered dot plot. Statistical significance was calculated in panel D by t-test (*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001). The IC50 value for PM26 was estimated using GraphPad Prism v8 with a 95% confidence interval and settings for normalize dose-response curves (IC50 = 94 nM, 95%CI = 35 nM– 249 nM).

PM26 was used in SPR competition experiments to inhibit DC-SIGN binding to immobilized spike protein, both in the oriented and non-oriented set-ups (Fig 6B and 6C). The lectin (20 μM) was co-injected with variable concentrations of PM26 (from 50 μM to 0.1 μM), and the results showed clear dose-dependent inhibition. No significant difference was observed between the oriented and non-oriented surface, which is consistent with the binding data previously discussed (Fig 2). An IC50 of 9.6±0.4 μM is estimated for the inhibition, which correlates with the apparent KD of DC-SIGN for the spike surfaces, which is here the reporting interaction (Fig 6C). In such competition test, it suggests that a higher avidity, towards DC-SIGN, can be awaited for PM26 [51].

The possibility of blocking DC-SIGN-mediated SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection using PM26 was thus examined. Jurkat DC-SIGN were pre-incubated with PM26 for 20 min before being challenged with VSV/SARS-CoV-2. The results of blocking DC-SIGN receptor by PM26 are shown as a percentage of inhibition of infection transmitted by Jurkat DC-SIGN to susceptible Vero E6, as compared with SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection mediated by Jurkat DC-SIGN to Vero E6 without addition of any compound. PM26 was tested at four different concentrations: 5 μM, 500 nM, 50 nM and 5 nM and demonstrated the IC50 of 94 nM (95%CI = 35 nM– 249 nM) for the inhibition of VSV/SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection, which is consistent with the results described for HIV inhibition and confirming an effective affinity in the nanomolar range for PM26 [49].

MDDCs promote DC-SIGN-mediated trans-infection of SARS-CoV-2 of the human lung cell line Calu-3

To confirm the role of DC/L-SIGN in SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection observed when using pseudotypes assay, we have also performed the trans-infection experiment using the authentic SARS-CoV-2 isolate. We challenged MDDCs or Jurkat DC-SIGN with SARS-CoV-2 for 2h and after exhaustive washing, we co-incubated MDDCs with susceptible Calu-3 cells. We used SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate at MOI: 0.1–1 in case of MDDC and at MOI: 1 in case of Jurkat DC-SIGN. The trans-infection in Calu-3 was estimated by using an anti-SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid antibody and colorimetric detection as described. As a positive control of infection, we performed direct infection of Calu-3 with equal titer of the SARS-CoV-2. To estimate the optical density values of blank for this experiment, we have co-incubated MDDCs or Jurkat DC-SIGN with Calu-3 cells in the same conditions however without challenging them with SARS-CoV-2. As a control of DC/L-SIGN contribution in trans-infection experiment we have used anti-DC/L-SIGN antibody. Additionally, we have performed the trans-infection assay in the presence of PBMC or parental Jurkat not expressing DC-SIGN.

Trans-infection experiment with the authentic SARS-CoV-2 showed that DC/L-SIGN promoted efficient trans-infection of Calu-3 mediated by both, MDDC and Jurkat DC-SIGN (Fig 7A and 7B). Antibody anti-DC/L-SIGN could reduce the DC-SIGN-mediated trans-infection mediated by MDDC and Jurkat DC-SIGN (p = 0.0832 and p<0.0001, respectively) confirming the essential function of this receptor in SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection process.

Fig 7. DC-SIGN-mediated trans-infection of a respiratory cell line Calu-3 and T lymphocyte cell line, with the SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate.

Fig 7

A. MDDCs or PBMCs trans-infection of Calu-3 with SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate was used at MOI: 0.1–1. Compound PM26 was used at 5 μM, 500 nM and 50 nM. Direct infection bar established as 100% of the infection correspond to the mean of six replicates of direct infection of Calu-3 cells with the same MOI of the authentic SARS-CoV-2. MDDCs and PBMCs for this experiment were obtained from 4 different healthy blood donors. Bars represent mean of triplicates of two independent experiments (3 donors and one donor respectively) ± SEM of mean. As a control of inhibition of infection mediated by DC-SIGN, Ab anti-DC-SIGN was used. B. Jurkat and Jurkat DC-SIGN-mediated trans-infection of Calu-3 with the authentic SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 was used at MOI: 1. Compound PM26 was used at 5 μM and 500 nM. Direct infection bar established as 100% of the infection correspond to the mean of triplicated of direct infection of Calu-3 cells with the same MOI of the authentic SARS-CoV-2. t test was performed to estimate the statistical significance of inhibition of infection as compared to DC-SIGN-expressing cells by either Ab anti-DC-SIGN or PM26. Individual results are presented as scattered dot plot. Statistical significance was calculated by t-test (*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001).

The potency of inhibiting the DC-SIGN-mediated trans-infection with the authentic SARS-CoV-2 isolate by the glycomimetic compound PM26 was studied by six replicates using both systems, MDDC and Jurkat DC-SIGN (Fig 7A and 7B). In MDDC-mediated trans-infection PM26 was tested at 3 concentrations: 5 μM (81% inhibition of the trans-infection, p = 0.0049), 500 nM (15.5% inhibition of the trans-infection) and 50 nM. In Jurkat DC-SIGN-mediated trans-infection PM26 was examined at 2 concentrations: 5 μM (70.4% inhibition of the trans-infection, p<0.0001) and 500 nM (60.6% inhibition of the trans-infection, p<0.0001).

Discussion

Even if viruses target mainly one specific entry receptor within their infection cycle, their efficiency often largely depends upon additional binding events at the cell surface, which promote access to this receptor [4,52]. Although such additional receptors may not promote any fusion step, they can drive viral internalization through endocytic processes or simply by viral adhesion to the host cell, accumulation of viral particles on the cell surface and finally engagement with the entry receptor followed by the fusion event [5355]. Different types of attachment factors can be found on the cell surface: either glycans, such as heparan-sulfate [56], glycolipids or protein N-glycans, often targeted by envelope viral protein with lectin-like properties [57], or immune lectin-type receptors including CLRs and Siglecs [58,59]. CLRs primary role is to sense the presence of pathogen through recognition of specific non self-glycans. However, some viruses are able to hijack them as co-receptors for cell entry or hiding. HIV represents a famous example since it exploits DC-SIGN in genital mucosa to promote uptake by DCs and T lymphocytes trans-infection [11].

SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-Co-V use heparan sulfate and sialic acid exposed at the cell surface to attach to cell membranes [6062]. Remarkably, DC/L-SIGN were not only reported to act as attachment factors for SARS-CoV-1, but also as promoters of viral dissemination through trans-infection. Here we investigate whether those CLRs could also play a role in SARS-CoV-2 infection and dissemination [17,63]. While we were finalizing this work, a first preprint article described the binding (Elisa test) of Fc-CLR constructs, notably based on DC-SIGN and MGL, to a commercial RBD domain of the SARS-CoV-2 [64]. Given the importance of the role played by glycan determinants in this recognition event, peculiar attention must be paid to the quality of the S protein sample used. Indeed, it has to be ideally as close as possible to the physiological product in terms of glycosylation pattern and distribution. In particular, the expression system considered as well as the local protein environment may have a strong impact on the type of glycan added and their level of maturation [65]. Viral envelope proteins display a dense array of glycans resulting from evolutionary pressure to mask immunogenic epitopes at their surfaces. This glycan density coupled to specific structural features of envelope proteins generate steric constraints preventing proper access of glycan processing enzymes to some substrate glycans [65]. Expressing the whole spike ectodomain or just the single RBD domain may therefore lead to very different N-glycan distribution, especially considering that the RBD contains only 2 N-glycosylations sites, while up to 66 N-glycan sites are found over the whole spike protein [28]. For these reasons, we selected the entire ectodomain of S as our model to investigate additional attachment factors for SARS-CoV-2. We expressed the protein using the same construct enabling the spike EM structure [30] and its glycan profiling [28], using a HEK293-derived expression system known to provide glycosylation pattern similar to epithelial tissues. Similarly, we expressed the entire ectodomain for the CLRs as well, avoiding Fc-CRD constructs, in order to preserve their specific oligomeric assembly and therefore their avidity properties.

Using SPR we showed that all the CLRs tested interact with the spike protein. Three of those, DC-SIGN, L-SIGN and Langerin, share the ability to recognize high-mannose oligosaccharides. In particular, L-SIGN is tightly specific for high-mannose, while DC-SIGN additionally recognizes fucose based ligands (several Lewis type glycans) and Langerin binds sulfated sugars as well. MGL is specific for Gal and GalNAc terminated glycans and may bind to complex N-glycans as a function of their level of maturation [66]. Analyzing the glycosylation pattern of the spike protein, reported in Fig 3B, all glycosylation sites depicted in green or orange are potential ligands for L-SIGN and Langerin, with different level of probability from site to site, while MGL’s ligands will be found in magenta sites. DC-SIGN might potentially recognize all of them. Beside all considerations about specificity, the accessibility of N-glycan sites upon spike presentation at the SARS-CoV-2 virus surface is also of paramount importance for recognition. DC-SIGN and L-SIGN share the same tetrameric organization and they recognize with similar avidity the spike functionalized SPR surface, suggesting that they share a primary recognition epitope—i.e. high mannose. The SPR experiments described here were performed sequentially on the same spike surfaces with the different CLRs. Of these, DC-SIGN and L-SIGN have similar organization and molecular weight [67], thus the difference in RU level reached by the two lectins at their equilibrium (approx. 1000 RU higher for DC-SIGN) suggests that there is more DC-SIGN binding and thus more epitopes available for it, implying that high mannose are not the unique glycan epitope used here by DC-SIGN. Thus DC-SIGN can also bind to some other complex N-glycosylation sites (in magenta in Fig 3B), possibly presenting a proper fucosylation pattern that generates Lewis-type epitopes. These considerations, in addition to the oligomeric state of the CLRs examined, lead us to rule out a simple interaction with a single preferential epitope and a 1:1 stoichiometry in favor of a more complex picture with multiple and simultaneous binding events, like the “Velcro effect” often recalled when discussing glycan-protein interactions [51]. This is clearly supported by the EM characterization of Spike/DC-SIGN complexes (Fig 3C) that shows several interactions areas on the spike and can also explain the absence of affinity differences between non-oriented and oriented spikes surfaces in SPR.

The complexity of the binding event(s) described above does not allow to extract kinetic association and dissociation rates from the sensorgrams. Only a global apparent KD could be inferred, giving avidity levels. However, L-SIGN may have a slightly better affinity (around 2 μM, while values ranging from 5 to 10 μM have been obtained for DC-SIGN and MGL) and seems to generate more stable complexes. Such μM range of affinity, as determined here for soluble forms of CLR, will result in surface avidity of several orders of magnitude higher at the cell membrane [51]. Indeed, CLRs, as DC-SIGN, are organized in microdomains, allowing multiple attachment points for viral capture [68].

CLRs and particularly DC/L-SIGN have been associated to important steps of viral entry and infection of different viruses. Participation of DC-SIGN in the infectivity and initial dissemination of a number of viral agents has been described in animal models for measles [69,70], Japanese encephalitis virus [71] and in vivo for HIV-1 [11]. The founder viruses that initiate HIV infection through mucosa exhibit higher content of high-mannose carbohydrates [72], as well as higher binding to DCs dependent on DC-SIGN expression [73]. In the case of Ebola virus, DCs and macrophages have been shown to be the initial targets of infection in macaques [74,75] and circulating DC-SIGN+ DCs have been shown to be the first cell subset infected upon intranasal EBOV inoculation in a murine model [76].

In SARS-CoV-1 infection, DC/L-SIGN can enhance viral infection and dissemination [16,17] and even it has been proposed that L-SIGN could act as an alternative cell receptor to ACE2 [15]. Our work shows that DC/L-SIGN are important factors contributing to additional routes of infection also mediated by the S protein of SARS-CoV-2. This trans-infection process greatly facilitates viral transmission to susceptible cells. In vivo, DC-SIGN is largely expressed in immature dendritic cells in submucosa and tissue resident macrophages, including alveolar macrophages [77] whereas L-SIGN is highly expressed in human type II alveolar cells and lung endothelial cells [15]. Using primary MDDCs and M2-MDM, two of the established primary cell models to explore DC-SIGN interactions [78], and a well-established VSV-based pseudovirion system, we did not observe direct infection of MDDCs or M2-MDM, indicating that DC-SIGN expressed by these cells does not function as an alternative receptor (Fig 4A). MDDCs and M2-MDM, as expected, were infected by VSV pseudotyped with EBOV-GP or VSV-G, although in a DC-SIGN dependent and independent manner respectively. DC-SIGN on MDDC, however, showed a clear function as an enhancer of infection, in a process known as trans-infection [11] (Fig 4B). Similar results were obtained with the T-lymphocyte Jurkat cell line. T lymphocytes lack ACE2 expression [79] and both the parental Jurkat cell line and Jurkats expressing DC/L-SIGN were not directly infected by SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirions (Fig 5A). Therefore, we did not observe that these CLRs can function as alternative receptors to ACE2 in non-susceptible cells, such as T lymphocytes, as it has been recently suggested by Amraie et al. [80]. On the other hand, DC/L-SIGN expression on Jurkat cells allows binding of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirions. Future studies will address the trans-infection mechanism and whether the virus is simply attached and stabilized at cell surfaces by CLRs or internalized in dedicated compartment awaiting trans-infective release. This trans-infection mechanism is significantly inhibited by a specific DC/L-SIGN antibody and, remarkably, it seems exclusive of DC/L-SIGN, since the related CLR Langerin does not mediate trans-infection in Jurkat cells. This is similar to what has been reported for HIV-1, since Langerin acts as an antiviral receptor that degrades HIV-1 via internalization and subsequent degradation [81]. On the other hand, Langerin appears to function as a trans-receptor for EBOV pseudovirions highlighting the complexity of CLRs recognition patterns and functionalities.

Although the pseudovirus system has been extensively validated for SARS-CoV-2 viral entry in neutralizing and pathogenic studies [82] we have confirmed our results with authentic SARS-CoV-2 using both MDDC and Jurkat-DC-SIGN cells (Fig 7A and 7B). Furthermore, the respiratory Calu-3 cell line was used to confirm SARS-CoV-2 DC-SIGN dependent trans-infection in a more physiological way showing both the relevance of the mechanism described and the effect of inhibition of the lectin binding properties with the glycomimetic DC-SIGN ligand PM26.

The biological relevance of the interaction of CLRs with SARS-CoV-2 remains yet to be fully explored. The innate immune system provides the first line of defense against viruses and it is now clear that severe COVID-19 is largely due to an imbalance between viral replication and antiviral and pro-inflammatory responses [83]. Here we demonstrate that DC/L-SIGN can function, in primary cells and cell lines, as potent trans-receptors. The expression of DC/L-SIGN in relevant cell subsets along the respiratory tract, such as submucosal DCs and Macrophages or importantly type II alveolar cells, which also express high level of ACE2, together with their potency to enhance viral infection could be critical for the pathogenesis of COVID-19. In this context, it is important to note that DC-SIGN expression is negatively regulated by IFN, TGF-β, and anti-inflammatory agents [84] and that DC/L-SIGN activation through ligand recognition triggers the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and IL-12 [58]. These cytokines are raised up in severe forms of COVID-19 and are among the mediators responsible for the development of the cytokine storm related to poor prognosis and eventual fatalities [85]. DC/L-SIGN expression can be upregulated as well, since it has been demonstrated that while innate immune responses are potently activated by SARS-CoV-2, it also counteracts the production of type I and type III interferon [86].

Innate immunity plays an important role in initial control and the pathogenesis of COVID-19. There are a number of clinical trials focused on the use of interferon and anti-inflammatory agents to try to modulate the inflammatory response triggered by SARS-CoV-2 [87]. Such approaches could be the key for treating severe cases of COVID-19, which correlate with cytokine storm and hyper-activation of immune responses [37]. On the other hand, indiscriminate blocking of immune signaling would be counterproductive in the early stages of the infection and for patients with moderate disease, who appear to maintain a functional, well-adapted immune response.

DC/L-SIGN antagonists may help reducing the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection by inhibiting the trans-receptor role played by these CLRs. We show here that PM26, a glycomimetic antagonist of DC-SIGN, inhibits the interaction of the S protein with the lectin receptor and blocks DC-SIGN-mediated SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection of susceptible Vero E6 cells. PM26 is known to act both by binding DC-SIGN CRD and by promoting its internalization [50], thus reducing the lectin concentration on cell surface and further impairing the ability of the virus to exploit it for enhancing its dissemination. Additionally, upon binding to DC-SIGN PM26 was shown to induce a pro-inflammatory anti-viral response [50], which should be beneficial at the onset of the infection and may help to steer the immune response towards a profile correlated with milder forms of the disease.

Demonstration of a model of involvement of APCs in SARS-CoV-2 early dissemination through CRLs DC/L-SIGN, could open new avenues for understanding and treating the imbalanced innate immune response observed in COVID-19 pathogenesis. The potential of this and other CLRs antagonists in prevention or as part of combination therapy of COVID-19 needs to be further explored.

Materials and methods

Protein production and purification

The extracellular domains (ECD) of DC-SIGN (residues: 66–404), L-SIGN (residues: 78–399), Langerin (residues: 68–328) and MGL (residues: 61–292) were produced and purified as already described [8891] while SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein was expressed and purified as follows. The mammalian expression vectors used for the S ectodomain, derived from a pαH vector, was a kind gift from J. McLellan [30]. This construct possesses, in its C-terminus, an 8xHis tag followed by 2 StrepTagII. EXPI293 cells grown in EXPI293 expression medium were transiently transfected with the S ectodomain vector according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Cultures were harvested five days after transfection and the medium was separated from the cells by centrifugation. Supernatant was passed through a 0.45 μm filter and used for a two-step protein purification on Aktä Xpress, with a HisTrap HP column (GE Healthcare) and a Superose 6 column (GE Healthcare). Before sample loading, columns were equilibrated into 20 mM Tris pH 7.4; supplemented with variable concentrations of NaCl (150–500 mM) depending on the experiments. Unbound proteins were eluted from affinity column with equilibration buffer, contaminants with the same buffer supplemented with 75 mM imidazole while the spike protein was eluted with equilibration buffer supplemented with 500 mM imidazole and immediately loaded onto a gel filtration column run in equilibration buffer. Fractions of interest were pooled and concentrated at 0.5 mg/mL on an Amicon Ultra 50K centrifugal filter according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Millipore). Fractions and samples were analyzed for purity using SPS-PAGE at 8% acrylamide gel, with or without ß-mercapto-ethanol as reductant. The concentration of purified spike protein was estimated using an absorption coefficient (A1%,1cm) at 280 nm of 10.4 calculated using the PROTPARAM program (http://web.expasy.org/protparam/) on the Expasy Server. Quality control and visualization of the different samples was performed by negative staining Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) using Uranyl Acetate as stain (2% w/v).

Negative staining electron microscopy

Negative-stain grids were prepared using the mica-carbon flotation technique [92]. 4 μL of spike samples from purifications diluted at about 0.05–0.1 mg/mL were adsorbed on the clean side of a carbon film previously evaporated on mica and then stained using 2% w/v Uranyl Acetate for 30 s. The sample/carbon ensemble was then fished using an EM grid and air-dried. Images were acquired under low dose conditions (<30 e−/Å2) on a Tecnai 12 FEI electron microscope operated at 120 kV using a Gatan ORIUS SC1000 camera (Gatan, Inc., Pleasanton, CA) at 30,000x nominal magnification. To facilitate the visualization of the molecules, a Gaussian filter was applied to the images using Photoshop, then the gray levels were saturated and the background eliminated. For the 2D classification, images were processed with RELION 2.1 [93]. CTF was estimated with CTFFind-4.1 [94]. An initial set of 409 particles (box size of 512 pixels, sampling of 2.2 Å/pixel) was obtained by manual picking. After 2D classification the best looking 2D class averages were used as references for Autopicking. A set of around 35 000 particles (box size of 256 pixels, sampling of 4.4 Å/pixel, mask diameter 300Å) was obtained by Autopicking with a gaussian blob. The 8 best obtained classes were calculated from 2854 particles.

SPR binding studies

Two types of surface plasmon resonance (SPR) experiments were performed at 25°C on a Biacore T200. The first experiments with non-oriented spike surfaces were performed using a CM5 sensor chip, functionalized at 5 μL/min. Spike protein was immobilized on flow cells using a classical amine-coupling method. Flow cell 1 (Fc1) was functionalized with BSA and used as reference surface. Fc1 to 4 were activated with 50 μL of a 0.2 M EDC/ 0.05 M NHS mixture and functionalized with 20 μg/mL BSA (Fc1) or 50 μg/mL spike protein (Fc2-4), the remaining activated groups of all cells were blocked with 30 μL of 1 M ethanolamine pH 8.5. The four Fc were treated at 100 μL/min with 5 μL of 10 mM HCl to remove non-specificly bound protein and 5 μL of 50 mM NaOH/ 1M NaCl to expose surface to regeneration protocol. Finally, an average of 2500, 3000 and 2300 RU of spike protein were functionalized onto Fc2, 3 and 4, respectively.

The second type of experiments used oriented spike surfaces and were performed using a CM3 sensor chip functionalized at 5 μL/min. The procedure for oriented functionalization has been described in our recent work [51]. Fc4 was functionalized with non-oriented spike protein exactly as described for the CM5 sensor chip using 20 μg/mL spike protein (final functionalization of 1430 RU). Fc1 (reference surface) and Fc2 were activated with 50 μL of a 0.2M EDC/ 0.05 M NHS mixture and functionalized with 170 μg/mL StrepTactin (IBA company) and the remaining activated groups were blocked with 80 μL of 1 M ethanolamine. Flow cells were treated at 100 μL/min with 5 μL of 10 mM HCl and 5 μL of 50 mM NaOH/ 1M NaCl. An average of 2000 RU of covalently immobilized StrepTactin was obtained. The spike protein was then captured at 20 μg/mL on Fc2 via its StrepTags. The surface was washed at 100 μL/min with 1M NaCl. Fc2 final level of functionalization was 990 RU. The presence of a double StrepTagII at the C-terminal extremity of the S protein (a total of 6 within the spike trimer) led to very stable surfaces and capture did not require the additional EDC/NHS treatment previously reported for such oriented functionalization. On both type of surfaces, for direct interaction studies, increasing concentrations of extracellular domain of DC-SIGN, L-SIGN, MGL and Langerin were prepared in a running buffer composed of 25 mM Tris pH 8, 150 mM NaCl, 4 mM CaCl2, 0.05% P20 surfactant, and either 80 μL of each DC-SIGN/L-SIGN ECD sample or 120 μL of Langerin/MGL ECD sample were injected onto the surfaces at 20 μL/min flow rate. Surface regeneration was performed by injecting 10 μL of 50 mM EDTA, demonstrating that the CLR/Spike interaction is strictly Ca2+ dependent and confirming the specific recognition of glycans. The resulting sensorgrams were reference surface corrected (subtractions from Fc1 signal). The apparent affinity of compounds was determined by fitting the steady state affinity model to the plots of binding responses versus concentration.

Cell lines

Baby hamster kidney cells (BHK-21, 12-14-17 MAW, Kerafast, Boston, MA) and African Green Monkey Cell Line (Vero E6) were cultured in Dulbecco´s modified Eagle medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), 25 μg/mL gentamycin and 2 mM L-glutamine. Calu-3 cell line were kindly provided by Luis Enjuanes (CNB, CSIC, Madrid, Spain) and were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 20% heat-inactivated FBS, 25 μg/mL gentamycin and 2 mM L-glutamine. Jurkat, Jurkat DC-SIGN, Jurkat L-SIGN [9] and Jurkat Langerin were maintained in RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated FBS, 25 μg/mL gentamycin and 2 mM L-glutamine.

Production of human monocyte-derived macrophages and dendritic cells

Blood samples were obtained from healthy human donors (Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain) under informed consent and IRB approval. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated by Ficoll density gradient centrifugation (Ficoll Paque, GE17-5442-02, Sigma-Aldrich). To generate monocyte-derived dendritic cells (MDDCs) and monocyte-derived macrophages (M2-MDMs), CD14+ monocytes were purified using anti-human CD14 antibody-labeled magnetic beads and iron-based LS columns (Miltenyi Biotec) and used directly for further differentiation into dendritic cells and macrophages (Dominguez-Soto et al., J Immunol 2011). Differentiation to immature MDDCs was achieved by incubation at 37°C with 5% CO2 for 7 days and subsequent activation with cytokines GM-CSF (1000 U/mL) and IL-4 (500 U/mL) (Miltenyi Biotec) every other day. For differentiation of M2-MDMs, cells were incubated at 37°C with 5% CO2 for 7 days and activated with M-CSF (1000 U/mL) (Miltenyi Biotec) every second day.

Production of SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped recombinant Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (rVSV-luc)

rVSV-luc pseudotypes were generated following a published protocol (Whitt, J Virol Methods 2010). First, BHK-21 were transfected to express the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 (codon optimized, kindly provided by J. García-Arriaza, CNB-CSIC, Spain), Ebola virus Makona Glycoprotein (EBOV-GP) (KM233102.1) was synthesized and cloned into pcDNA3.1 by GeneArt AG technology (Life Technologies, Regensburg, Germany) or VSV-G following the manufacturer’s instructions of Lipofectamine 3000 (Fisher Scientific). After 24 h, transfected cells were inoculated with a replication-deficient rVSV-luc pseudotype (MOI: 3–5) that contains firefly luciferase instead of the VSV-G open reading frame, rVSVΔG-luciferase (G*ΔG-luciferase) (Kerafast, Boston, MA). After 1 h incubation at 37°C, cells were washed exhaustively with PBS and then DMEM supplemented with 5% heat-inactivated FBS, 25 μg/mL gentamycin and 2 mM L-glutamine were added. Pseudotyped particles were collected 20–24 h post-inoculation, clarified from cellular debris by centrifugation and stored at -80°C [20,21,95]. Infectious titers were estimated as tissue culture infectious dose per mL by limiting dilution of rVSV-luc-pseudotypes on Vero E6 cells. Luciferase activity was determined by luciferase assay (Steady-Glo Luciferase Assay System, Promega).

Direct infection with pseudovirus

Cell lines: Jurkat, Jurkat DC-SIGN and Jurkat L-SIGN (3 x 105 cells) or primary cells: MDDCs, M2-MDMs (5 x 104 cells) were challenged with SARS-CoV-2, EBOV-GP or VSV-G pseudotyped recombinant viruses (MOI: 0.5–2). After 24 h of incubation, cells were washed twice with PBS and lysed for luciferase assay.

Trans-infection with pseudovirus

For trans-infection studies, Jurkat, Jurkat DC-SIGN, Jurkat L-SIGN, Jurkat Langerin (3 x 105 cells) or MDDCs (5 x 104 cells) were challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV-2, EBOV-GP or VSV-G pseudotyped viruses (MOI: 0.5–2) and incubated during 2 h at room temperature with rotation. Cells were then centrifuged at 1200 rpm for 5 minutes and washed twice with PBS supplemented with 0.5% bovine serum albumin (BSA) and 1 mM CaCl2. Jurkat, Jurkat DC-SIGN, Jurkat L-SIGN and Jurkat Langerin or MDDCs were then resuspended in RPMI medium and co-cultivated with adherent Vero E6 cells (1.5 x 105 cells/well) on a 24-well plate. After 24 h, the supernatant was removed and the monolayer of Vero E6 was washed with PBS three times and lysed for luciferase assay. The inhibitory effect of the glycomimetic compound PM26 on DC-SIGN-mediated trans-infection by Jurkat DC-SIGN to susceptible Vero E6 cells was tested in the same way as for authentic SARS-CoV-2 isolate (see below). PM26 was tested in triplicate and the IC50 value estimated using GraphPad Prism v8 with a 95% confidence interval and settings for normalize dose-response curves.

The authentic SARS-CoV-2 culture

The authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus (clinical isolate 213196167, passage 2, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain, GISAID reference EPI_ISL_1120962) was cultured in Vero E6 cells in 25 cm2 cell culture flasks until cytopathic effect was observed. The supernatant containing the virus was then collected, centrifuged at 1200 rpm for 10 min to remove cell debris and stored at -80°C for further experiments. The 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) of the authentic SARS-CoV-2 was determined following previously described protocol [96]. Briefly, Vero E6 cells (2 x 104 cells/well) seeded in a 96-well cell culture plate were incubated with 10-fold serial dilution of the authentic SARS-CoV-2 in DMEM supplemented with 5% FBS. Each dilution of the virus was tested by 6 replicates. After 48h of incubation at 37°C, the supernatant was removed and Vero E6 were washed with PBS twice. The cells were then fixed with methanol containing 10% paraformaldehyde for 24h at 4°C. The next day, the fixing buffer was removed and the cells were washed with 200 μl of PBS. Vero E6 were then permeabilized by adding 150 μl of PBS containing 0.1% Triton X-100 for 15min at room temperature. The cells were then washed with PBS three times and blocked by adding 200 μl of blocking solution (3% non-fat milk in PBS containing 0.1% Tween 20, PBST) for 1h at room temperature. After blocking, 100 μl of rabbit anti SARS-CoV Nucleocapsid antibody (#200-401-A50, Rockland Immunochemicals, Inc.) diluted 1:1000 in 1% non-fat milk in PBST was added to all wells and the plates were incubated for 1h at room temperature. The plates were then washed with PBS three times. Next, 100 μl of anti-rabbit IgG, HRP-linked antibody (#7074, Cell Signaling Technology) diluted 1:1000 in 1% non-fat milk in PBST was added to all wells and the plates were incubated again for 1h at room temperature. The plates were then washed with PBS three times and 100 μl of SIGMAFAST OPD (Sigma–Aldrich) was added. Following 10 min incubation time at room temperature, the reaction was stopped by adding 50 μl of 3M hydrochloric acid. The optical density at 490 nm (OD490) was measured using a Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC plate reader (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The positive signal was selected when exceeded an OD490 of the mean of negative controls plus 3 standard deviations of the negative controls. The TCID50 of the authentic SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate was calculated according to the Reed-Muench method. All assays including the authentic SARS-CoV-2 isolate were performed in a BSL3 facility at Instituto de Investigación Hospital 12 de Octubre.

Trans-infection with the SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate

For trans-infection experiment, Calu-3 (2 x 104 cells/well) were seeded in a 96-well cell culture plate. The following day, MDDCs (2 x 104 cells) or Jurkat and Jurkat DC-SIGN (2 x 104 cells) were challenged with the authentic SARS-CoV-2 at MOI 0.1–1. Anti-DC/L-SIGN antibody (MAB16211, R&D Systems) was used as a control of DC/L-SIGN-dependent infection. In case of using the anti-DC/L-SIGN antibody or compound PM26, the cells were first pre-incubated 20 min with the antibody or the compound before being challenged with authentic SARS-CoV-2. PM26 was tested at 3 different concentrations: 5 μM, 500 nM and 50 nM in case of MDDC and at 2 concentrations: 5 μM and 500 nM in case of Jurkat DC-SIGN. Cells were then incubated with the SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate during 2 h at room temperature with rotation. Cells were then centrifuged at 1200 rpm for 5 minutes and washed with PBS supplemented with 0.5% BSA and 1mM CaCl2 three times. Cells were then resuspended in RPMI medium and co-cultivate with adherent Calu-3 cells. After 48 h, the supernatant was removed and monolayer of Calu-3 was washed with PBS three times. The trans-infection in Calu-3 was then estimated by applying the protocol described above. Briefly, the cells were fixed, permeabilized, blocked with 3% non-fat milk, incubated with rabbit anti SARS-CoV Nucleocapsid antibody (1:1000), washed and incubated with anti-rabbit IgG-HRP antibody (1:1000). The plates were developed using SigmaFast OPD and the absorbance was measured at 490 nm using a Thermo Scientific Multiskan FC plate reader. The trans-infection was measured by 6–12 replicates and the data were analyzed by GraphPad Prism V8.

Synthesis of Inhibitors

Polyman26 (PM26) is a known glycomimetic ligand of DC-SIGN and an antagonist of DC-SIGN mediated HIV trans-infection [49,50]. It was synthesized as previously described and tested in SPR studies as an inhibitor of DC-SIGN interaction to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, using both the oriented and non-oriented S surface described above. In both cases, a 20 μM solution of DC-SIGN in a running buffer composed of 25 mM Tris pH 8, 150 mM NaCl, 4 mM CaCl2, 0.05% P20 surfactant was co-injected with variable concentrations of Polyman26, from 50 μM to 0.1 μM, in the same buffer. IC50 values were determined from the plot of PM26 concentration vs % inhibition by fitting four-parameter logistic model as previously described [97].

Supporting information

S1 Fig

Chromatograms of Superose 6 elution of SARS-CoV-2 Spike (A), DC-SIGN ECD (B) and mix of DC-SIGN ECD and SARS-CoV-2 Spike (C). In panel C, peak at 68 mL correspond to DC-SIGN ECD, which is in excess, and shouldered peak from 40 to 60 mL correspond to spike protein interacting with various numbers of DC-SIGN ECD. Fractions used for Electron Microscopy micrographs of DC-SIGN/SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein complexes (Fig 3C) are represented by the gray square (48 to 50 mL).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Sensorgrams of DC-SIGN/S protein interaction inhibition by a range of PM26 concentration.

In panel C, peak at 68 mL correspond to DC-SIGN ECD, which is in excess, and shouldered peak from 40 to 60 mL correspond to spike protein interacting with various numbers of DC-SIGN ECD. Fractions used for Electron Microscopy micrographs of DC-SIGN/SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein complexes (Fig 3C) are represented by the gray square (48 to 50 mL).

(TIF)

S3 Fig. DC-SIGN expression in MDDCs by flow cytometry analysis.

The colored cell population represents MDDCs stained with antibody Anti-DC-SIGN_PE. In grey unstained MDDCs. DC-SIGN expression was analyzed by flow cytometry in a BD FACS Canto II Cell Analyzer with FlowJo V10.7.1 software.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

F.F. thanks warmly J. McLellan for sharing the spike expressing vectors and E. Fadda for making models of the spike glycoprotein available as well as for stimulating exchanges on the #glycotime on twitter.

Data Availability

All numerical data are available from the OSFHOME database, at following url: https://osf.io/63jwr/.

Funding Statement

This work used the platforms of the Grenoble Instruct-ERIC centre (ISBG; UMS 3518 CNRS-CEA-UGA-EMBL) within the Grenoble Partnership for Structural Biology (PSB), supported by FRISBI (ANR-10-INBS-05-02) and GRAL, within the University Grenoble Alpes graduate school CBH-EUR-GS (ANR-17-EURE-0003). The EM facility is supported by the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Region, the Fondation Recherche Medicale, the fonds FEDER and the GIS-Infrastructures Biologie Sante et Agronomie (IBISA). F.F. acknowledges the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche PIA for Glyco@Alps (ANR-15-IDEX-02). Research in R.D. lab is supported by grants from the Instituto de Investigación Carlos III, ISCIII, (FIS PI 1801007), the European Commission Horizon 2020 Framework Programme: Project VIRUSCAN FETPROACT-2016: 731868, and by Fundación Caixa-Health Research (Project StopEbola). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Geijtenbeek TBH, Gringhuis SI. Signalling through C-type lectin receptors: shaping immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol. 2009;9: 465–479. 10.1038/nri2569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Takeuchi O, Akira S. Pattern Recognition Receptors and Inflammation. Cell. 2010;140: 805–820. 10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.de Jong MAWP, Vriend LEM, Theelen B, Taylor ME, Fluitsma D, Boekhout T, et al. C-type lectin Langerin is a beta-glucan receptor on human Langerhans cells that recognizes opportunistic and pathogenic fungi. Mol Immunol. 2010;47: 1216–1225. 10.1016/j.molimm.2009.12.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.van Kooyk Y, Geijtenbeek TB. DC-SIGN: escape mechanism for pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003;3: 697–709. 10.1038/nri1182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mnich ME, van Dalen R, van Sorge NM. C-Type Lectin Receptors in Host Defense Against Bacterial Pathogens. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10: 309. 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Van Breedam W, Pöhlmann S, Favoreel HW, de Groot RJ, Nauwynck HJ. Bitter-sweet symphony: glycan-lectin interactions in virus biology. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2014;38: 598–632. 10.1111/1574-6976.12052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.van Vliet SJ, den Dunnen J, Gringhuis SI, Geijtenbeek TB, van Kooyk Y. Innate signaling and regulation of Dendritic cell immunity. Curr Opin Immunol. 2007;19: 435–440. 10.1016/j.coi.2007.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.van Vliet SJ, García-Vallejo JJ, van Kooyk Y. Dendritic cells and C-type lectin receptors: coupling innate to adaptive immune responses. Immunol Cell Biol. 2008;86: 580–587. 10.1038/icb.2008.55 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Alvarez CP, Lasala F, Carrillo J, Muniz O, Corbi AL, Delgado R. C-type lectins DC-SIGN and L-SIGN mediate cellular entry by Ebola virus in cis and in trans. J Virol. 2002;76: 6841–6844. 10.1128/jvi.76.13.6841-6844.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Carbaugh DL, Baric RS, Lazear HM. Envelope Protein Glycosylation Mediates Zika Virus Pathogenesis. J Virol. 2019;93: e00113–19. 10.1128/JVI.00113-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Geijtenbeek TB, Kwon DS, Torensma R, van Vliet SJ, van Duijnhoven GC, Middel J, et al. DC-SIGN, a dendritic cell-specific HIV-1-binding protein that enhances trans-infection of T cells. Cell. 2000;100: 587–597. 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80694-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Halary F, Amara A, Lortat-Jacob H, Messerle M, Delaunay T, Houles C, et al. Human cytomegalovirus binding to DC-SIGN is required for dendritic cell infection and target cell trans-infection. Immunity. 2002;17: 653–664. 10.1016/s1074-7613(02)00447-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Navarro-Sanchez E, Altmeyer R, Amara A, Schwartz O, Fieschi F, Virelizier J-L, et al. Dendritic-cell-specific ICAM3-grabbing non-integrin is essential for the productive infection of human dendritic cells by mosquito-cell-derived dengue viruses. EMBO Rep. 2003;4: 723–728. 10.1038/sj.embor.embor866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.de Witte L, Nabatov A, Geijtenbeek TBH. Distinct roles for DC-SIGN+-dendritic cells and Langerhans cells in HIV-1 transmission. Trends Mol Med. 2008;14: 12–19. 10.1016/j.molmed.2007.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jeffers SA, Tusell SM, Gillim-Ross L, Hemmila EM, Achenbach JE, Babcock GJ, et al. CD209L (L-SIGN) is a receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101: 15748–15753. 10.1073/pnas.0403812101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Marzi A, Gramberg T, Simmons G, Möller P, Rennekamp AJ, Krumbiegel M, et al. DC-SIGN and DC-SIGNR Interact with the Glycoprotein of Marburg Virus and the S Protein of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. J Virol. 2004;78: 12090–12095. 10.1128/JVI.78.21.12090-12095.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yang Z-Y, Huang Y, Ganesh L, Leung K, Kong W-P, Schwartz O, et al. pH-Dependent Entry of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Is Mediated by the Spike Glycoprotein and Enhanced by Dendritic Cell Transfer through DC-SIGN. J Virol. 2004;78: 5642–5650. 10.1128/JVI.78.11.5642-5650.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The Lancet. 2020;395: 497–506. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhou P, Yang X-L, Wang X-G, Hu B, Zhang L, Zhang W, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579: 270–273. 10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hoffmann M, Kleine-Weber H, Schroeder S, Krüger N, Herrler T, Erichsen S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor. Cell. 2020;181: 271–280.e8. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Letko M, Marzi A, Munster V. Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS-CoV-2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5: 562–569. 10.1038/s41564-020-0688-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Walls AC, Park Y-J, Tortorici MA, Wall A, McGuire AT, Veesler D. Structure, Function, and Antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein. Cell. 2020;181: 281–292.e6. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li W, Moore MJ, Vasilieva N, Sui J, Wong SK, Berne MA, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is a functional receptor for the SARS coronavirus. Nature. 2003;426: 450–454. 10.1038/nature02145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Petersen E, Koopmans M, Go U, Hamer DH, Petrosillo N, Castelli F, et al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 with SARS-CoV and influenza pandemics. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20: e238–e244. 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30484-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.HCA Lung Biological Network, Sungnak W, Huang N, Bécavin C, Berg M, Queen R, et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nat Med. 2020;26: 681–687. 10.1038/s41591-020-0868-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Backovic M, Rey FA. Virus entry: old viruses, new receptors. Curr Opin Virol. 2012; 11. 10.1016/j.coviro.2011.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mangalmurti N, Hunter CA. Cytokine Storms: Understanding COVID-19. Immunity. 2020;53: 19–25. 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.06.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Watanabe Y, Allen JD, Wrapp D, McLellan JS, Crispin M. Site-specific glycan analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike. Science. 2020; eabb9983. 10.1126/science.abb9983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Watanabe Y, Berndsen ZT, Raghwani J, Seabright GE, Allen JD, Pybus OG, et al. Vulnerabilities in coronavirus glycan shields despite extensive glycosylation. Nat Commun. 2020;11: 2688. 10.1038/s41467-020-16567-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, Goldsmith JA, Hsieh C-L, Abiona O, et al. Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science. 2020;367: 1260–1263. 10.1126/science.abb2507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Casalino L, Gaieb Z, Dommer AC, Harbison AM, Fogarty CA, Barros EP, et al. Shielding and Beyond: The Roles of Glycans in SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. bioRxiv; 2020. June. 10.1101/2020.06.11.146522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhao P, Praissman JL, Grant OC, Cai Y, Xiao T, Rosenbalm KE, et al. Virus-Receptor Interactions of Glycosylated SARS-CoV-2 Spike and Human ACE2 Receptor. bioRxiv; 2020. June. 10.1101/2020.06.25.172403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brufsky A, Lotze MT. DC/L-SIGNs of hope in the COVID-19 pandemic. J Med Virol. 2020; jmv.25980. 10.1002/jmv.25980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jia Y, Shen G, Zhang Y, Huang K-S, Ho H-Y, Hor W-S, et al. Analysis of the mutation dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 reveals the spread history and emergence of RBD mutant with lower ACE2 binding affinity. bioRxiv; 2020. April. 10.1101/2020.04.09.034942 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S, Yoon H, Theiler J, Abfalterer W, et al. Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell. 2020; S0092867420308205. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Katz DH, Tahir UA, Ngo D, Benson MD, Bick AG, Pampana A, et al. Proteomic Profiling in Biracial Cohorts Implicates DC-SIGN as a Mediator of Genetic Risk in COVID-19. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS); 2020. June. 10.1101/2020.06.09.20125690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lucas C, Wong P, Klein J, Castro T, Silva J, Sundaram M, et al. Longitudinal immunological analyses reveal inflammatory misfiring in severe COVID-19 patients. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS); 2020. June. 10.1101/2020.06.23.20138289 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Relloso M, Puig-Kroger A. DC-SIGN (CD209) Expression Is IL-4 Dependent and Is Negatively Regulated by IFN, TGF-␤, and Anti-Inflammatory Agents. J Immunol.: 10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pallesen J, Wang N, Corbett KS, Wrapp D, Kirchdoerfer RN, Turner HL, et al. Immunogenicity and structures of a rationally designed prefusion MERS-CoV spike antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114: E7348–E7357. 10.1073/pnas.1707304114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Grant OC, Montgomery D, Ito K, Woods RJ. Analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein glycan shield: implications for immune recognition. bioRxiv; 2020. April. 10.1101/2020.04.07.030445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sikora M, von Bülow S, Blanc FEC, Gecht M, Covino R, Hummer G. Map of SARS-CoV-2 spike epitopes not shielded by glycans. bioRxiv; 2020. July. 10.1101/2020.07.03.186825 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hussain LA, Lehner T. Comparative investigation of Langerhans’ cells and potential receptors for HIV in oral, genitourinary and rectal epithelia. Immunology. 1995;85: 475–484. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tabarani G, Thépaut M, Stroebel D, Ebel C, Vivès C, Vachette P, et al. DC-SIGN neck domain is a pH-sensor controlling oligomerization: SAXS and hydrodynamic studies of extracellular domain. J Biol Chem. 2009;284: 21229–21240. 10.1074/jbc.M109.021204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Maalej MM, Forgione RE, Marchetti R, Bulteau FB, Thepaut MT, Lanzetta R, et al. The human macrophage galactose-type lectin, MGL, recognizes the outer core of E. coli lipooligosaccharide. ChemBioChem. 2019; cbic.201900087. 10.1002/cbic.201900087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Thépaut M, Valladeau J, Nurisso A, Kahn R, Arnou B, Vivès C, et al. Structural studies of langerin and Birbeck granule: a macromolecular organization model. Biochemistry. 2009;48: 2684–2698. 10.1021/bi802151w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Feinberg H, Guo Y, Mitchell DA, Drickamer K, Weis WI. Extended neck regions stabilize tetramers of the receptors DC-SIGN and DC-SIGNR. J Biol Chem. 2005;280: 1327–1335. 10.1074/jbc.M409925200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Marzi A, Möller P, Hanna SL, Harrer T, Eisemann J, Steinkasserer A, et al. Analysis of the Interaction of Ebola Virus Glycoprotein with DC-SIGN (Dendritic Cell–Specific Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 3–Grabbing Nonintegrin) and Its Homologue DC-SIGNR. J Infect Dis. 2007;196: S237–S246. 10.1086/520607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yang Z. Distinct Cellular Interactions of Secreted and Transmembrane Ebola Virus Glycoproteins. Science. 1998;279: 1034–1037. 10.1126/science.279.5353.1034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ordanini S, Varga N, Porkolab V, Thépaut M, Belvisi L, Bertaglia A, et al. Designing nanomolar antagonists of DC-SIGN-mediated HIV infection: ligand presentation using molecular rods. Chem Commun Camb Engl. 2015;51: 3816–3819. 10.1039/c4cc09709b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Berzi A, Ordanini S, Joosten B, Trabattoni D, Cambi A, Bernardi A, et al. Pseudo-Mannosylated DC-SIGN Ligands as Immunomodulants. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 35373. 10.1038/srep35373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Porkolab V, Pifferi C, Sutkeviciute I, Ordanini S, Taouai M, Thépaut M, et al. Development of C-type lectin-oriented surfaces for high avidity glycoconjugates: towards mimicking multivalent interactions on the cell surface. Org Biomol Chem. 2020;18: 4763–4772. 10.1039/d0ob00781a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lambert AA, Gilbert C, Richard M, Beaulieu AD, Tremblay MJ. The C-type lectin surface receptor DCIR acts as a new attachment factor for HIV-1 in dendritic cells and contributes to trans- and cis-infection pathways. Blood. 2008;112: 1299–1307. 10.1182/blood-2008-01-136473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lee B, Leslie G, Soilleux E, O’Doherty U, Baik S, Levroney E, et al. cis Expression of DC-SIGN Allows for More Efficient Entry of Human and Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses via CD4 and a Coreceptor. J Virol. 2001;75: 12028–12038. 10.1128/JVI.75.24.12028-12038.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Burleigh L, Lozach P-Y, Schiffer C, Staropoli I, Pezo V, Porrot F, et al. Infection of dendritic cells (DCs), not DC-SIGN-mediated internalization of human immunodeficiency virus, is required for long-term transfer of virus to T cells. J Virol. 2006;80: 2949–2957. 10.1128/JVI.80.6.2949-2957.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Liu P, Ridilla M, Patel P, Betts L, Gallichotte E. Beyond attachment: Roles of DC-SIGN in dengue virus infection. Traffic Cph Den. 2017. 10.1111/tra.12469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cagno Tseligka, Jones Tapparel. Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans and Viral Attachment: True Receptors or Adaptation Bias? Viruses. 2019;11: 596. 10.3390/v11070596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Dimitrov DS. Virus entry: molecular mechanisms and biomedical applications. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2: 109–122. 10.1038/nrmicro817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bermejo-Jambrina M, Eder J, Helgers LC, Hertoghs N, Nijmeijer BM, Stunnenberg M, et al. C-Type Lectin Receptors in Antiviral Immunity and Viral Escape. Front Immunol. 2018;9: 590. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Perez-Zsolt D, Erkizia I, Pino M, García-Gallo M, Martin MT, Benet S, et al. Anti-Siglec-1 antibodies block Ebola viral uptake and decrease cytoplasmic viral entry. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4: 1558–1570. 10.1038/s41564-019-0453-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Milewska A, Zarebski M, Nowak P, Stozek K, Potempa J, Pyrc K. Human Coronavirus NL63 Utilizes Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans for Attachment to Target Cells. J Virol. 2014;88: 13221–13230. 10.1128/JVI.02078-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Park Y-J, Walls AC, Wang Z, Sauer MM, Li W, Tortorici MA, et al. Structures of MERS-CoV spike glycoprotein in complex with sialoside attachment receptors. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2019;26: 1151–1157. 10.1038/s41594-019-0334-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Tortorici MA, Walls AC, Lang Y, Wang C, Li Z, Koerhuis D, et al. Structural basis for human coronavirus attachment to sialic acid receptors. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2019;26: 481–489. 10.1038/s41594-019-0233-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Han DP, Lohani M, Cho MW. Specific Asparagine-Linked Glycosylation Sites Are Critical for DC-SIGN- and L-SIGN-Mediated Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Entry. J Virol. 2007;81: 12029–12039. 10.1128/JVI.00315-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Chiodo F, Bruijns SCM, Rodriguez E, Li RJE, Molinaro A, Silipo A, et al. Novel ACE2-Independent Carbohydrate-Binding of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to Host Lectins and Lung Microbiota. bioRxiv; 2020. May. 10.1101/2020.05.13.092478 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Behrens A-J, Crispin M. Structural principles controlling HIV envelope glycosylation. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2017;44: 125–133. 10.1016/j.sbi.2017.03.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Valverde P, Martinez JD, Cañada FJ, Arda A, Jimenez-Barbero J. Molecular recognition in C-type lectins: the cases of DC-SIGN, Langerin, MGL, and L-sectin. ChemBioChem. 2020; cbic.202000238. 10.1002/cbic.202000238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Feinberg H, Mitchell DA, Drickamer K, Weis WI. Structural basis for selective recognition of oligosaccharides by DC-SIGN and DC-SIGNR. Sci N Y NY. 2001;294: 2163–2166. 10.1126/science.1066371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Cambi A, de Lange F, van Maarseveen NM, Nijhuis M, Joosten B, van Dijk EM, et al. Microdomains of the C-type lectin DC-SIGN are portals for virus entry into dendritic cells. J Cell Biol. 2004;164: 145–155. 10.1083/jcb.200306112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Mesman AW, de Vries RD, McQuaid S, Duprex WP, de Swart RL, Geijtenbeek TBH. A Prominent Role for DC-SIGN+ Dendritic Cells in Initiation and Dissemination of Measles Virus Infection in Non-Human Primates. Tailleux L, editor. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e49573. 10.1371/journal.pone.0049573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mesman AW, Zijlstra-Willems EM, Kaptein TM, de Swart RL, Davis ME, Ludlow M, et al. Measles Virus Suppresses RIG-I-like Receptor Activation in Dendritic Cells via DC-SIGN-Mediated Inhibition of PP1 Phosphatases. Cell Host Microbe. 2014;16: 31–42. 10.1016/j.chom.2014.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Liang J-J, Chou M-W, Lin Y-L. DC-SIGN Binding Contributed by an Extra N-Linked Glycosylation on Japanese Encephalitis Virus Envelope Protein Reduces the Ability of Viral Brain Invasion. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018;8. 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Go EP, Hewawasam G, Liao H-X, Chen H, Ping L-H, Anderson JA, et al. Characterization of Glycosylation Profiles of HIV-1 Transmitted/Founder Envelopes by Mass Spectrometry. J Virol. 2011;85: 8270–8284. 10.1128/JVI.05053-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Parrish NF, Gao F, Li H, Giorgi EE, Barbian HJ, Parrish EH, et al. Phenotypic properties of transmitted founder HIV-1. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110: 6626–6633. 10.1073/pnas.1304288110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Geisbert TW, Hensley LE, Larsen T, Young HA, Reed DS, Geisbert JB, et al. Pathogenesis of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever in Cynomolgus Macaques. Am J Pathol. 2003;163: 2347–2370. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63591-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Martinez O, Leung LW, Basler CF. The role of antigen-presenting cells in filoviral hemorrhagic fever: Gaps in current knowledge. Antiviral Res. 2012;93: 416–428. 10.1016/j.antiviral.2012.01.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Lüdtke A, Ruibal P, Wozniak DM, Pallasch E, Wurr S, Bockholt S, et al. Ebola virus infection kinetics in chimeric mice reveal a key role of T cells as barriers for virus dissemination. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 43776. 10.1038/srep43776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Tailleux L, Pham-Thi N, Bergeron-Lafaurie A, Herrmann J-L, Charles P, Schwartz O, et al. DC-SIGN Induction in Alveolar Macrophages Defines Privileged Target Host Cells for Mycobacteria in Patients with Tuberculosis. Klenerman P, editor. PLoS Med. 2005;2: e381. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Dominguez-Soto A, Aragoneses-Fenoll L, Martin-Gayo E, Martinez-Prats L, Colmenares M, Naranjo-Gomez M, et al. The DC-SIGN-related lectin LSECtin mediates antigen capture and pathogen binding by human myeloid cells. Blood. 2007;109: 5337–5345. 10.1182/blood-2006-09-048058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Hamming I, Timens W, Bulthuis M, Lely A, Navis G, van Goor H. Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis. J Pathol. 2004;203: 631–637. 10.1002/path.1570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Amraie R, Napoleon MA, Yin W, Berrigan J, Suder E, Zhao G, et al. CD209L/L-SIGN and CD209/DC-SIGN act as receptors for SARS-CoV-2 and are differentially expressed in lung and kidney epithelial and endothelial cells. bioRxiv; 2020. June. 10.1101/2020.06.22.165803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, Fluitsma D, de Jong MAWP, de Gruijl T, et al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med. 2007;13: 367–371. 10.1038/nm1541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Schmidt F, Weisblum Y, Muecksch F, Hoffmann H-H, Michailidis E, Lorenzi JCC, et al. Measuring SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody activity using pseudotyped and chimeric viruses. J Exp Med. 2020;217: e20201181. 10.1084/jem.20201181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Yang L, Liu S, Liu J, Zhang Z, Wan X, Huang B, et al. COVID-19: immunopathogenesis and Immunotherapeutics. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5: 128. 10.1038/s41392-020-00243-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Relloso M, Puig-Kröger A, Pello OM, Rodríguez-Fernández JL, de la Rosa G, Longo N, et al. DC-SIGN (CD209) Expression Is IL-4 Dependent and Is Negatively Regulated by IFN, TGF-β, and Anti-Inflammatory Agents. J Immunol. 2002;168: 2634–2643. 10.4049/jimmunol.168.6.2634 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Vabret N, Britton GJ, Gruber C, Hegde S, Kim J, Kuksin M, et al. Immunology of COVID-19: Current State of the Science. Immunity. 2020;52: 910–941. 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.05.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Blanco-Melo D, Nilsson-Payant BE, Liu W-C, Uhl S, Hoagland D, Møller R, et al. Imbalanced Host Response to SARS-CoV-2 Drives Development of COVID-19. Cell. 2020;181: 1036–1045.e9. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Angka L, Market M, Ardolino M, Auer RC. Is innate immunity our best weapon for flattening the curve? J Clin Invest. 2020; 10.1172/JCI140530. 10.1172/JCI140530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Achilli S, Th M, Fieschi F, Viv C. TETRALEC, Artificial Tetrameric Lectins: A Tool to Screen Ligand and Pathogen Interactions. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 19. 10.3390/ijms21155290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Chabrol E, Nurisso A, Daina A, Vassal-Stermann E, Thépaut M, Girard E, et al. Glycosaminoglycans are interactants of Langerin: comparison with gp120 highlights an unexpected calcium-independent binding mode. PloS One. 2012;7: e50722. 10.1371/journal.pone.0050722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Maalej M, Forgione RE, Marchetti R, Bulteau F, Thépaut M, Lanzetta R, et al. Human Macrophage Galactose-Type Lectin (MGL) Recognizes the Outer Core of Escherichia coli Lipooligosaccharide. ChemBioChem. 2019;20: 1778–1782. 10.1002/cbic.201900087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Reina JJ, Díaz I, Nieto PM, Campillo NE, Páez JA, Tabarani G, et al. Docking, synthesis, and NMR studies of mannosyl trisaccharide ligands for DC-SIGN lectin. Org Biomol Chem. 2008;6: 2743–2754. 10.1039/b802144a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Valentine RC, Shapiro BM, Stadtman ER. Regulation of glutamine synthetase. XII. Electron microscopy of the enzyme from Escherichia coli. Biochemistry. 1968;7: 2143–2152. 10.1021/bi00846a017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Scheres SHW. RELION: Implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination. J Struct Biol. 2012;180: 519–530. 10.1016/j.jsb.2012.09.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Zhang K. Gctf: Real-time CTF determination and correction. J Struct Biol. 2016;193: 1–12. 10.1016/j.jsb.2015.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Whitt MA. Generation of VSV pseudotypes using recombinant ΔG-VSV for studies on virus entry, identification of entry inhibitors, and immune responses to vaccines. J Virol Methods. 2010;169: 365–374. 10.1016/j.jviromet.2010.08.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Amanat F, Stadlbauer D, Strohmeier S, Nguyen THO, Chromikova V, McMahon M, et al. A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans. Nat Med. 2020. [cited 9 Jul 2020]. 10.1038/s41591-020-0913-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Varga N, Sutkeviciute I, Ribeiro-Viana R, Berzi A, Ramdasi R, Daghetti A, et al. A multivalent inhibitor of the DC-SIGN dependent uptake of HIV-1 and Dengue virus. Biomaterials. 2014;35: 4175–4184. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrew Pekosz

21 Dec 2020

Dear Pr FIESCHI,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "DC/L-SIGN recognition of spike glycoprotein promotes SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection and can be inhibited by a glycomimetic antagonist" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

You'll see that the reviewers were supportive of the work and had constructive comments to make. Two important critiques span the three reviewers: 1) the need to use authentic SARS-CoV-2 in the trans-infection models and 2) additional data on the transient internalization hypothesized to be part of the mechanism through which trans-infection takes place. You should consider and respond to the other comments of course, but those two are critical to address in a revised manuscript.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Andrew Pekosz, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Andrew Pekosz

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

You'll see that the reviewers were supportive of the work and had constructive comments to make. Two important critiques span the three reviewers: 1) the need to use authentic SARS-CoV-2 in the trans-infection models and 2) additional data on the transient internalization hypothesized to be part of the mechanism through which trans-infection takes place. You should consider and respond to the other comments of course, but those two are critical to address in a revised manuscript.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: This is a strong study which mixes multiple experimental approaches to suggest that DC-SIGN and L-SIGN are important attachment receptors which mediate SARS-CoV-2 trans infection. EM, surface plasmon resonance, bioinformatics, and cell culture models all complement each other nicely.

I would have liked some data if available showing the location of the virus prior to trans infection. As mentioned in the manuscript there is evidence that the virus is contained in a non-endolysosomal compartment in the dendritic cell prior to trans-infection. Did the authors consider EM experiments to demonstrate this?

Reviewer #2: Thépaut M et al., propose that DC/L-SIGN, two C-type lectin receptors (CLRs), present in immune cells such as macrophages and dendritic cells in the mucosa and respiratory tissue, serve as attachment points for SARS-CoV-2. These CLRs could recognize glycan sites on Spike. While these immune cells are not infected, they can direct the attached viruses to the surrounding cells that are then infected by a process called trans-infection. The authors showed by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) that when put together, purified DC-SIGN and L-SIGN can associate with Spike from SARS-CoV-2. Electron Microscopy experiments showed the complexes formed by DC-SIGN and Spike and by LC-SIGN and Spike, which are, most of the time, at a stoichiometric ratio of 1:1. Monocyte-derived dendritic cells (MDDCs), and M2 monocyte derived macrophages (M2-MDM), which are cells known to express DC/L-SIGN, were used for the trans-infection experiments, as well as modified Jurkat cells expressing or not DC/L-SIGN. These cells were incubated with VSV/SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped viruses, that contains firefly luciferase, and then co-cultured with Vero E6 cells. Trans-infection in Vero E6 cells was monitored by the measure of luciferase activity. Authors showed that upon co-culture, pseudoviruses were able to infect Vero E6 cells and this was inhibited using an anti-DC/L-SIGN antibody, suggesting that cells expressing these CLRs can indeed bind the virus and carry it to other cells that can be infected. Moreover, interaction of DC-SIGN with Spike was also inhibited with Polyman26 (PM26), a multivalent glycomimetic mannoside and antagonist of DC-SIGN, which confirms that DC-SIGN recognizes glycans on Spike, as suggested by the authors. Finally, PM26 was also able to inhibit trans-infection on Vero E6 cells.

The subject of this research is of high interest because of the actual pandemic and the potential use of inhibitors of a potential trans-infection phenomenon occurring in the lungs. However, the trans-infection experiments should have been done with a more physiological cell model. Non-human Vero E6 cells are not advised to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 infection of the host. Respiratory cell types of human origin would be an appropriate model. Also, while experiments with pseudotyped viruses have allowed us to learn a lot about SARS-CoV-2 infection, isolated viruses would have also been a better model, in particular for experiments based on the interaction of the virion with the cell.

Reviewer #3: In this study, Thépaut and colleagues report a potential contribution of C-type lectin receptors in SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection of ACE2-expressing cells. For this, they expressed and purified a soluble SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) stabilized ectodomain protein and performed SPR experiments using soluble multimeric C-type lectin receptors (DC-SIGN, L-SIGN, MGL, and langerin). They found that they all bind with the S ectodomain to different extent and that, although not functioning as entry/triggering receptors, the C-type lectins can mediate trans-infection of VSV pseudotypes from antigen presenting cells to susceptible Vero E6 cells. Although the study is interesting and reveal a potentially important mechanism of infection, the study falls short in characterizing the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 S with C-type lectin receptors and comparing to other viral glycoproteins, and the mechanism by which trans-infection occurs.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: No further experiments are absolutely needed. Please see the above. I think the data as shown demonstrate that like SARS, trans-infection, mediated by DCL-SIGN, is something that does occur, at least in vitro.

Reviewer #2: 1- First, all experiments are performed with pseudoviruses as a surrogate of virus infection. The authors are interested in DC/L-SIGN as potential attachment points for SARS-CoV-2 (not as an entry receptor). It is known that the virus envelope or other proteins present on the surface may impact the interaction of the virus with host cells. N-glycan sites are not restricted to Spike and could play a role in interaction with DC/L-SIGN proteins. Use of Spike mutant impairing glycosylation are required to strengthen the conclusion that DC/L-SIGN interacts with glycans on Spike. Additionally, it is difficult to know at which extend the results presented in this study are relevant to an infection with the whole virus. If possible, some of the experiments should be done with isolated infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus?

2- The second major comment is related to the use of Vero E6 cells for the trans-infection experiments. Vero E6 are not an appropriate model for this particular type of study. Particularly, the entire paper, the authors refer to dissemination of the infection in the respiratory tissue. If the authors want to claim demonstration of dissemination of the infection in respiratory tissue, key experiments should be done at a minimum using a respiratory cell line (Calu-3, A549 expressing ACE2, or other respiratory cell lines expressing ACE2) or event better primary cells.

If not possible, the conclusions and phrasing of the interpretation need to be revised. The scope of the current results is less significant than claimed by the authors.

3- The authors state that DC/L-SIGN “can also internalize viral particles into cells for storage in non-lysosomal compartments and subsequent transfer to susceptible cells in the process recognized as trans-infection”. The authors claim that it is the main process involved in the trans-infection observed in their study between immune cells and Vero E6 cells. However, the authors do not show evidence of viral particles internalization. Experiment showing that this is really happening are required to support this claim.

Reviewer #3: One major shortcoming of this study is the lack of validation with native virus. Indeed, the glycosylation of S onto native virions might be different than the recombinant secreted ectodomain and even from VSV pseudotypes. For instance, the formation of the membrane-associated viral factories and budding at the ERGIC followed by exocytosis might have an effect on glycosylation that could translate in differential binding to C-type lectin receptors.

In addition, the SPR data are difficult to reconcile, especially given the difference in binding for DC-SIGN with the non-oriented and oriented Spike ectodomain. The Kd values are relatively high and the lack of saturation for Langerin is problematic. Controls to with soluble ACE2 to validate the S ectodomain protein, as well as deglycosylated S to confirm that interaction with the C-type lectin receptors is specifically glycan dependent (may find that Langerin binding is non-specific, explaining the lack of saturation). In addition, comparison of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV ectodomain would enhance the study, or as an alternative, comparison to EBOV GP ectodomain could be done and correlated to the trans-infection data.

Another issue is that the outcome of C-type lectin receptor-S binding is unknown as well as the mechanism by which trans-infection occurs. For instance, once there is C-type lectin engagement, what happens to the virions? Are they internalized? Does this lead to some degradation/inactivation of a fraction of the viral population? Are the C-type lectin receptors activated? Is trans-infection more efficient than cell-free infection? Is this unique to SARS-CoV-2 when compared to SARS-CoV?

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: I would perhaps discuss a bit more the possible location of the virus in the dendritic cell prior to trans infection. This is mentioned briefly but could help the reader understand the process a bit more. For HIV there is a debate about whether the virus simply sticks to the surface of the cell, or is actively pinocytosed into a non-endosomal compartment awaiting trans-infective release.

Reviewer #2: In the text, the authors state that they could not calculate kinetic association and dissociation rate constants (kon and koff). An inverted experiment, i.e. attach the lectin receptors to the surface and inject the spike protein, could help solve the problem

“Our work shows that DC/L-SIGN are important enhancers of infection mediated by the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 that greatly facilitate viral transmission to susceptible cells.” The term “enhancers” is not the appropriated term here. Authors are not showing a “basal” infection and then the enhancement of it by the presence of DC/L-SIGN. They show trans-infection, but not an enhancement of the infection.

Histograms with SEM of all figures should be represented as scatter plots with each point representing one individual replicate for better appreciation of variations.

The authors conclude “the specific topological presentation of their CRD as well as their oligomeric status is preserved for each of the CLR”. This conclusion is based on the use of recombinant constructs corresponding to the extracellular domains. Additional experiments are needed to verify if these properties are retained in the entire protein or reference that support this conclusion is needed. If not, this sentence should be rephrased.

Fig1: Transmission Electron Microscopy images in G. Is there some protein aggregation at this time point? If so, could the authors confirm that for these studies, proteins at day 22 were not used?

In a supplementary figure, the authors should show what is described in the text, “twenty out of the twenty-two SARS-CoV-2 S protein N-linked glycosylation sequons” conserved, when compared to SARS-CoV-1 S.

Fig2:

- Negative controls should be shown as supplementary information. Ex: Lectins alone, do they attach to the surface?

- The interaction of Spike and DC/L-SIGN is indeed verified here in vitro, which is the main point of the figure. If possible this result should be confirmed using pseudotyped viruses.

Fig3:

- In A and B, the models of the two proteins observed by TEM are represented. It would be interesting to also show a model of the complex that is observed by TEM in C.

- In the text the authors say they are expecting a stoichiometric Spike/CLR complex of 1:1, but for the TEM experiments they use a ratio of 1:3 (1 trimeric spike for 3 tetrameric DC-SIGN ECD). Is there a specific reason for this? If so, this should be commented in the discussion. This information might be useful for other people who would want to do similar experiments.

- SEC profiles should be shown as supplemental figures. It is valuable information for other researchers who might want to do experiments related to these results.

Fig4:

- The results presented in this figure should be repeated in a more relevant model: Calu-3, A549 expressing ACE2, or other respiratory cell lines expressing ACE2.

- In panel A, authors used MDDC and M2-MDC cells, while in panel B, the trans-infection is shown only in MDDC cells. Were experiments in M2-MDC done as well? If so, results should be added here. In particular, as in the discussion, authors conclude on both cell lines. If there are results on M2-MDC, they should appear in Fig. 4, along with MDDC trans-infection. If not, the conclusion (lines 533-536) needs to be restricted to MDDCs.

- Data showing DC/L-SIGN expression in these cells should be provided.

- More details should be provided in the legend to understand the figure.

Fig5:

- More details should be provided in the legend to understand the figure.

- Line 377: “Interestingly, no trans-infection was observed using Jurkat Langerin cells.” Why is it interesting? This was expected from the SRP results.

- Sentence in the discussion “On the other hand, DC/L-SIGN expression on Jurkat cells allows binding and capture of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirions”. There is no experiment showing the binding and capture of pseudovirions in these cells.

Fig6:

- Another major comment: this is one of the most important figures of the paper, or at least it is important for the conclusion about using PM26 as an inhibitor to decrease the spread of the infection. However, the experiments related to the inhibition (panels C and D) seem to have been performed only once. These results must be replicated in at least 3 independent experiments.

- Authors use PM26 as an antagonist for DC-SIGN. Is there a similar mannoside for L-SIGN. If so, it would be relevant to perform similar experiment with it. In particular, as L-SIGN seems to show a better trans-infection rate than DC-SIGN (Fig 5C).

- It is written that the oriented and non oriented Spike set-ups were used for the SPR competition assays, but in panel B, there is only the oriented one. sensorgrams of the interaction with the non-oriented set-up should be added.

- Some details are missing to entirely understand the figure without extensively refering to the material and methods or results sections.

In the discussion, it is said that type II alveolar cells are known to express high levels of L-SIGN. If type II alveolar cells, believed to express ACE2, express also L-SIGN, would there be a trans-infection phenomenon here, or L-SIGN could help to attract and bind Spike, so then ACE2 could properly bind the latter? Maybe something to add to the discussion.

Lines 565-567: “DC/L-SIGN expression can be upregulated as well, since it has been demonstrated that while innate immune responses are potently activated by SARS CoV-2, it also counteracts the production of type I and type III interferon”. The sentence is confusing. Has it been shown that DC/L-SIGN is upregulated by SARS-CoV-2 infection or is it an assumption from the fact that IFN-I and III are downregulated during a SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Lines 584-587: “Additionally, upon binding to DC-SIGN PM26 was shown to induce a pro-inflammatory anti-viral response, which should be beneficial at the onset of the infection and may help to steer the immune response towards a profile correlated 586 with milder forms of the disease.” Either there is something wrong with the sentence or a deeper discussion of this idea needs to be provided. As mentioned by the authors, the cytokine storm is associated with SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. It is therefore difficult to understand why one would use a pro-inflammatory molecule in patients that would already have an initiated proinflammatory response?

Final paragraph of the discussion “Demonstration of involvement of APCs in SARS-CoV-2 early dissemination through CRLs DC/L-SIGN…”. This is clearly an overstatement. There is no demonstration of this in this study. The presented results may at most suggest a model. As discussed above further, more physiologically relevant experiments are required to draw such statements.

The last sentence of the abstract should be modified: the authors should use respiratory cell lines and not Vero E6 cells to conclude on a potential spreading of infection.

Minor comments related to the format:

There are some sentences/ideas where references are missing: Lines 67-75, line 107 (transmission rates), lines 110-117, lines 431-437, lines 446-448, lines 455-457, lines 463-465, lines 498-499, lines 515 (HIV).

Unformatted reference at line 573-574.

Line 562: replace though by through?

Line 581: replace Vero cells by Vero E6 cells.

Use C-type lectin receptors (CLR) abbreviation throughout the text after first definition.

Definition of DC or L-SIGN abbreviation was not introduced.

Sentence at lines 99-101 reads oddly. Do the authors mean that the cleavage at S2’ site is necessary to trigger conformational changes in S2? If so, I think it is difficult to understand that idea with the sentence as it is written.

Sentence at line 493: “DC-SIGN can also bind to some o complex N-glycosylation sites”. What does it mean some "o" complex?

Reviewer #3: In the introduction, the authors hypothesized that difference in binding of attachment factors (such as C-type lectin receptors), may play a role in differential transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 when compared to SARS-CoV (lines 107-110). This led me to think that this study will provide sought-after comparative data of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, yet only SARS-CoV-2 is investigated here, and this study does test the hypothesis. As mentioned above, data with SARS CoV ectodomain would greatly enhance this study. The mention of the authors’ hypothesis puts the spotlight on the absence of data with SARS-CoV.

In addition, although I agree with the authors that the use of the full ectodomain is more likely to give biologically relevant data than the RBD alone (lines 462-463), it is important to note that an uncleaved and stabilized version was used and some caution should be taken when interpreting the data. Was a stabilized version of the spike used for the VSV pseudotypes? This is not mentioned in the materials and methods.

In line 137, virulence is inaccurate, at least for the D614G variant (better at replicating and infecting upper airway epithelial cells, potentially better transmitted, but no clear effect on virulence). Please provide references for an effect on virulence.

Please, provide p values for the infection data (Figs.4-6).

Some sections of the discussion are too speculative and are not based on the data presented (Lines 561-576).

Line 78, add “enveloped” in front of viruses. This statement only applies to them.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here on PLOS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Decision Letter 1

Andrew Pekosz

20 Apr 2021

Dear Pr FIESCHI,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'DC/L-SIGN recognition of spike glycoprotein promotes SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection and can be inhibited by a glycomimetic antagonist' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Andrew Pekosz, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Andrew Pekosz

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

There are some minor changes that should be made during the prepublication process but overall, the reviewers found the manuscript significantly improved.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: My prior comments have been addressed.

Reviewer #2: The authors replied appropriately to the previous requests. The conclusions have been strengthened by the use of SARS-CoV-2 in Calu-3 cells.

Reviewer #3: This is a revision by Thépaut and colleagues. The authors have now provided data with replicative SARS-CoV-2 and in Calu-3, which were critical and strengthen the study. I just have a few small comments:

I appreciated the clarification provided by the authors regarding the SPR data (insignificant difference between Kd for DC-SIGN and high Kd values) in the response to the reviewers’ comments. I also understand the reluctance of the authors to perform additional controls given time constraints and I realize that some of the controls regarding the glycan-dependent interaction asked by me and reviewer 2 were viewed as “really routine treatment in SPR”. While I, again, understand that the authors may find using spike mutants with impaired glycosylation or deglycosylated forms unnecessary, the authors should at least add in the text the regeneration conditions (EDTA treatment) which are missing in the manuscript and use this opportunity to clarify that the Ca2+ dependence in binding is characteristic glycan interaction with CLRs indicating that the binding is glycan-dependent. The readers of PLoS Pathogens are not necessarily experts in lectin binding and/or SPR.

My other suggestion of comparing with SARS-CoV Spike was also not well received. I know that binding studies have been performed for SARS-CoV S with lectins, but there is no side-by-side comparison. In fact, my suggestion stems from the authors’ own statement early in the manuscript: “We posit that the enhanced transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 relative to SARS-CoV-1 might result from a more efficient viral adhesion through host-cell attachment factors, which may promote efficient infection of ACE2+ cells.” (lines 111-114). Again, I understand the reluctance of the authors to perform experiments with the SARS-CoV S, but the fact that the authors are not testing their hypothesis while mentioning that the glycosylations are conserved between SARS-CoV-1/2 Spike (lines 130-132) is confusing. I urge the authors to modify the text.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: My prior comments have been addressed.

Reviewer #2: No additional comments

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: My prior comments have been addressed.

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: In line 507: change non-permissive to non-susceptible

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Andrew Pekosz

30 Apr 2021

Dear Pr FIESCHI,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "DC/L-SIGN recognition of spike glycoprotein promotes SARS-CoV-2 trans-infection and can be inhibited by a glycomimetic antagonist," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    Chromatograms of Superose 6 elution of SARS-CoV-2 Spike (A), DC-SIGN ECD (B) and mix of DC-SIGN ECD and SARS-CoV-2 Spike (C). In panel C, peak at 68 mL correspond to DC-SIGN ECD, which is in excess, and shouldered peak from 40 to 60 mL correspond to spike protein interacting with various numbers of DC-SIGN ECD. Fractions used for Electron Microscopy micrographs of DC-SIGN/SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein complexes (Fig 3C) are represented by the gray square (48 to 50 mL).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Sensorgrams of DC-SIGN/S protein interaction inhibition by a range of PM26 concentration.

    In panel C, peak at 68 mL correspond to DC-SIGN ECD, which is in excess, and shouldered peak from 40 to 60 mL correspond to spike protein interacting with various numbers of DC-SIGN ECD. Fractions used for Electron Microscopy micrographs of DC-SIGN/SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein complexes (Fig 3C) are represented by the gray square (48 to 50 mL).

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. DC-SIGN expression in MDDCs by flow cytometry analysis.

    The colored cell population represents MDDCs stained with antibody Anti-DC-SIGN_PE. In grey unstained MDDCs. DC-SIGN expression was analyzed by flow cytometry in a BD FACS Canto II Cell Analyzer with FlowJo V10.7.1 software.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Point by point answers to reviewers-final.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All numerical data are available from the OSFHOME database, at following url: https://osf.io/63jwr/.


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES