Qiongqiong Zhou

Bio: Qiongqiong Zhou is an academic researcher from American Chemical Society. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Biology. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 6 publications receiving 1266 citations.

Research and Development on Therapeutic Agents and Vaccines for COVID-19 and Related Human Coronavirus Diseases

Abstract: Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, this disease has spread rapidly around the globe. Considering the potential threat of a pandemic, scien...

Assay Techniques and Test Development for COVID-19 Diagnosis

Abstract: An ongoing theme of the COVID-19 pandemic is the need for widespread availability of accurate and efficient diagnostic testing for detection of SARS-CoV-2 and antiviral antibodies in infected indiv...

Lipid Nanoparticles-From Liposomes to mRNA Vaccine Delivery, a Landscape of Research Diversity and Advancement.

Abstract: Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) have emerged across the pharmaceutical industry as promising vehicles to deliver a variety of therapeutics. Currently in the spotlight as vital components of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, LNPs play a key role in effectively protecting and transporting mRNA to cells. Liposomes, an early version of LNPs, are a versatile nanomedicine delivery platform. A number of liposomal drugs have been approved and applied to medical practice. Subsequent generations of lipid nanocarriers, such as solid lipid nanoparticles, nanostructured lipid carriers, and cationic lipid-nucleic acid complexes, exhibit more complex architectures and enhanced physical stabilities. With their ability to encapsulate and deliver therapeutics to specific locations within the body and to release their contents at a desired time, LNPs provide a valuable platform for treatment of a variety of diseases. Here, we present a landscape of LNP-related scientific publications, including patents and journal articles, based on analysis of the CAS Content Collection, the largest human-curated collection of published scientific knowledge. Rising trends are identified, such as nanostructured lipid carriers and solid lipid nanoparticles becoming the preferred platforms for numerous formulations. Recent advancements in LNP formulations as drug delivery platforms, such as antitumor and nucleic acid therapeutics and vaccine delivery systems, are discussed. Challenges and growth opportunities are also evaluated in other areas, such as medical imaging, cosmetics, nutrition, and agrochemicals. This report is intended to serve as a useful resource for those interested in LNP nanotechnologies, their applications, and the global research effort for their development.

A Comprehensive Review of the Global Efforts on COVID-19 Vaccine Development

Abstract: This report examines various vaccine platforms including inactivated vaccines, protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines, and nucleic acid (DNA or mRNA) vaccines, and their ways of producing immunogens in cells.

Exosomes—Nature’s Lipid Nanoparticles, a Rising Star in Drug Delivery and Diagnostics

Abstract: Exosomes are a subgroup of nanosized extracellular vesicles enclosed by a lipid bilayer membrane and secreted by most eukaryotic cells. They represent a route of intercellular communication and participate in a wide variety of physiological and pathological processes. The biological roles of exosomes rely on their bioactive cargos, including proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids, which are delivered to target cells. Their distinctive properties—innate stability, low immunogenicity, biocompatibility, and good biomembrane penetration capacity—allow them to function as superior natural nanocarriers for efficient drug delivery. Another notably favorable clinical application of exosomes is in diagnostics. They hold various biomolecules from host cells, which are indicative of pathophysiological conditions; therefore, they are considered vital for biomarker discovery in clinical diagnostics. Here, we use data from the CAS Content Collection and provide a landscape overview of the current state and delineate trends in research advancement on exosome applications in therapeutics and diagnostics across time, geography, composition, cargo loading, and development pipelines. We discuss exosome composition and pathway, from their biogenesis and secretion from host cells to recipient cell uptake. We assess methods for exosome isolation and purification, their clinical applications in therapy and diagnostics, their development pipelines, the exploration goals of the companies, the assortment of diseases they aim to treat, development stages of their research, and publication trends. We hope this review will be useful for understanding the current knowledge in the field of medical applications of exosomes, in an effort to further solve the remaining challenges in fulfilling their potential.

Pharmacologic Treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review.

Abstract: Importance The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents an unprecedented challenge to identify effective drugs for prevention and treatment. Given the rapid pace of scientific discovery and clinical data generated by the large number of people rapidly infected by SARS-CoV-2, clinicians need accurate evidence regarding effective medical treatments for this infection. Observations No proven effective therapies for this virus currently exist. The rapidly expanding knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 virology provides a significant number of potential drug targets. The most promising therapy is remdesivir. Remdesivir has potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, but it is not US Food and Drug Administration approved and currently is being tested in ongoing randomized trials. Oseltamivir has not been shown to have efficacy, and corticosteroids are currently not recommended. Current clinical evidence does not support stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance The COVID-19 pandemic represents the greatest global public health crisis of this generation and, potentially, since the pandemic influenza outbreak of 1918. The speed and volume of clinical trials launched to investigate potential therapies for COVID-19 highlight both the need and capability to produce high-quality evidence even in the middle of a pandemic. No therapies have been shown effective to date.

Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19.

Abstract: Coronavirus disease 2019 is a newly emerging infectious disease currently spreading across the world. It is caused by a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2, which plays a key role in the receptor recognition and cell membrane fusion process, is composed of two subunits, S1 and S2. The S1 subunit contains a receptor-binding domain that recognizes and binds to the host receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, while the S2 subunit mediates viral cell membrane fusion by forming a six-helical bundle via the two-heptad repeat domain. In this review, we highlight recent research advance in the structure, function and development of antivirus drugs targeting the S protein.

Diagnosing COVID-19: The Disease and Tools for Detection

Abstract: COVID-19 has spread globally since its discovery in Hubei province, China in December 2019. A combination of computed tomography imaging, whole genome sequencing, and electron microscopy were initially used to screen and identify SARS-CoV-2, the viral etiology of COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to inform the audience of diagnostic and surveillance technologies for SARS-CoV-2 and their performance characteristics. We describe point-of-care diagnostics that are on the horizon and encourage academics to advance their technologies beyond conception. Developing plug-and-play diagnostics to manage the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak would be useful in preventing future epidemics.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract: Background Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Search methods Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. Main results Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19. Antigen tests Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. Authors' conclusions Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): An overview of viral structure and host response.

Abstract: Background and aim As a result of its rapid spread in various countries around the world, on March 11, 2020, WHO issued an announcement of the change in coronavirus disease 2019 status from epidemic to pandemic disease. The virus that causes this disease is indicated originating from animals traded in a live animal market in Wuhan, China. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 can attack lung cells because there are many conserved receptor entries, namely Angiotensin Converting Enzyme-2. The presence of this virus in host cells will initiate various protective responses leading to pneumonia and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. This review aimed to provide an overview related to this virus and examine the body’s responses and possible therapies. Method We searched PubMed databases for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2, Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. Full texts were retrieved, analyzed and developed into an easy-to-understand review. Results We provide a complete review related to structure, origin, and how the body responds to this virus infection and explain the possibility of an immune system over-reaction or cytokine storm. We also include an explanation of how this virus creates modes of avoidance to evade immune system attacks. We further explain the therapeutic approaches that can be taken in the treatment and prevention of this viral infection. Conclusion In summary, based on the structural and immune-evasion system of coronavirus, we suggest several approaches to treat the disease.