MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413744585 · doi:10.1128/jvi.00684-25

Contemporary seasonal human coronaviruses display differences in cellular tropism compared to laboratory-adapted reference strains

2025· article· en· W4413744585 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Gartner, Monique L. Smith, Clyde Dapat, Y‐F Liaw, Thomas Tran, Randy Suryadinata, Joseph Chen, Guizhi Sun, Rory A. Shepherd, George Taiaroa, Michael J. Roche, Wen Shi Lee, Philip Robinson, José M. Polo, Kanta Subbarao, Jessica A. Neil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsBiologyTropismCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)VirologyCoronavirus2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)BetacoronavirusTissue tropismVirusOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal human coronaviruses (sHCoVs) cause 15%-30% of common colds. The reference strains used for research were isolated decades ago and have been passaged extensively, but contemporary sHCoVs have been challenging to study as they are notoriously difficult to grow in standard immortalized cell lines. Here, we addressed these issues by utilizing primary human nasal epithelial cells (HNECs) and immortalized human bronchial epithelial cells (BCi) differentiated at an air-liquid interface, as well as human embryonic stem cell-derived alveolar type II (AT2) cells to recover contemporary sHCoVs from human nasopharyngeal specimens. From 21 specimens, we recovered four HCoV-229e, three HCoV-NL63, and eight HCoV-OC43 viruses. All contemporary sHCoVs showed sequence differences from lab-adapted CoVs, particularly within the spike gene. Evidence of nucleotide changes in the receptor binding domains within HCoV-229e and detection of recombination for both HCoV-229e and HCoV-OC43 isolates was also observed. Importantly, we developed methods for the amplification of high-titer stocks of HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-229e that maintained sequence identity, and we established methods for the titration of contemporary sHCoV isolates. Comparison of lab-adapted and contemporary strains in immortalized cell lines and airway epithelial cells revealed differences in cell tropism, growth kinetics, and cytokine production between lab-adapted and contemporary sHCoV strains. These data confirm that contemporary sHCoVs differ from lab-adapted reference strains and, using the methods established here, should be used for the study of CoV biology and evaluation of medical countermeasures.IMPORTANCEZoonotic coronaviruses have caused significant public health emergencies. The occurrence of a similar spillover event in the future is likely, and efforts to further understand coronavirus biology should be a high priority. Several seasonal coronaviruses circulate within the human population. Efforts to study these viruses have been limited to reference strains isolated decades ago due to the difficulty in isolating clinical isolates. Here, we use human airway and alveolar epithelial cultures to recover contemporary isolates of human coronaviruses HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229e, and HCoV-OC43. We establish methods to make high-titer stocks and titrate HCoV-229e and HCoV-NL63 isolates. We show that contemporary isolates of HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 have a different tropism within the respiratory epithelium compared to lab-adapted strains. Although HCoV-229e clinical and lab-adapted strains similarly infect the respiratory epithelium, differences in host response and replication kinetics are observed. Using the methods developed here, future research should include contemporary isolates when studying coronavirus biology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Virology→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→