Treatment with the CCR5 antagonist OB-002 reduces lung pathology, but does not prevent disease in a Syrian hamster model of SARS-CoV-2 infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic, a wide range of treatment options have been evaluated in preclinical studies and clinical trials, with several being approved for use in humans. Immunomodulatory drugs have shown success in dampening the deleterious inflammatory response seen in severe COVID-19 patients, but there remains an urgent need for development of additional therapeutic options for COVID-19 treatment. A potential drug target is the CCR5-CCL5 axis, and blocking this pathway may protect against severe disease. Here we evaluated whether OB-002, an analog of human CCL5 and a potent antagonist of CCR5, provides therapeutic benefit in SARS-CoV-2 infected Syrian hamsters. Daily treatment with OB-002 altered immune gene transcription in the lungs, and reduced pathology following infection, but did not prevent weight loss or viral replication in the lungs of infected animals, even in combination with the antiviral drug remdesivir. Our data suggest that targeting the CCR5-CCL5 pathway in SARS-CoV-2 infection in hamsters is insufficient to significantly impact disease development in this model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".