Home Journals Articles Updates About
CN
image
收藏切换
SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variants Show Attenuated Neurovirulence Compared with the Wild-Type Strain in Elderly Human Brain Spheroids
收藏切换
PDF
Weikang Chen1, 2, †, Xiaobing Jiang3, †, Wei Liang2, †, Haojie Bai2, †, Mingze Xu2, Zhe Liu4, Lina Yi4, Yanming Liu2, Yanxia Huang1, Yongxin Zhang2, Lixia Xu5, Baoshu Xie1, Nu Zhang1, Jun Yu2, 6, Jing Lu4, *, Haipeng Xiao7, *, Xiaoxing Li2, *
Research. Vol 7 Article ID 0376
Less
收藏切换
Research. Vol 7 Article ID 0376
• Research Article •
SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variants Show Attenuated Neurovirulence Compared with the Wild-Type Strain in Elderly Human Brain Spheroids
Full
Weikang Chen1, 2, †, Xiaobing Jiang3, †, Wei Liang2, †, Haojie Bai2, †, Mingze Xu2, Zhe Liu4, Lina Yi4, Yanming Liu2, Yanxia Huang1, Yongxin Zhang2, Lixia Xu5, Baoshu Xie1, Nu Zhang1, Jun Yu2, 6, Jing Lu4, *, Haipeng Xiao7, *, Xiaoxing Li2, *
Affiliations
  • 1Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
  • 2 Institute of Precision Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
  • 3Department of Neurosurgery/Neuro-Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC), Guangzhou 510000, China.
  • 4 Guangdong Provincial Institution of Public Health, Guangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 510000, China.
  • 5Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
  • 6Department of Medicine and Therapeutics and Institute of Digestive Disease, State Key Laboratory of Digestive Disease, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR 999077, China.
  • 7Department of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Published: 2024-05-13 doi: 10.34133/research.0376
Outline
收藏切换

Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variants still causes neurological complications in elderly individuals. However, whether and how aging brains are affected by Omicron variants in terms of neuroinvasiveness and neurovirulence are unknown. Here, we utilize resected paracarcinoma brain tissue from elderly individuals to generate primary brain spheroids (BSs) for investigating the replication capability of live wild-type (WT) strain and Omicron (BA.1/BA.2), as well as the mechanisms underlying their neurobiological effects. We find that both WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 are able to enter BSs but weakly replicate. There is no difference between Omicron BA.1/BA.2 and WT strains in neurotropism in aging BSs. However, Omicron BA.1/BA.2 exhibits ameliorating neurological damage. Transcriptional profiling indicates that Omicron BA.1/BA.2 induces a lower neuroinflammatory response than WT strain in elderly BSs, suggesting a mechanistic explanation for their attenuated neuropathogenicity. Moreover, we find that both Omicron BA.1/BA.2 and WT strain infections disrupt neural network activity associated with neurodegenerative disorders by causing neuron degeneration and amyloid-β deposition in elderly BSs. These results uncover Omicron-specific mechanisms and cellular immune responses associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-induced neurological complications.

Weikang Chen, Xiaobing Jiang, Wei Liang, Haojie Bai, Mingze Xu, Zhe Liu, Lina Yi, Yanming Liu, Yanxia Huang, Yongxin Zhang, Lixia Xu, Baoshu Xie, Nu Zhang, Jun Yu, Jing Lu, Haipeng Xiao, Xiaoxing Li. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variants Show Attenuated Neurovirulence Compared with the Wild-Type Strain in Elderly Human Brain Spheroids[J]. Research, 2024 , 7 (5) : 0376 . DOI: 10.34133/research.0376
Full Text
Less
Introduction
Less
Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes a wide range of neurological complications, including loss of smell, headaches, and encephalitis [1]. A substantial number of patients suffering from long COVID may persist as “brain fog”, characterized by difficulty paying attention, remembering, and processing information [2,3]. It is particularly concerning for older people (65 years or older) who are at higher risk of COVID-19 symptoms persisting than younger people [4,5]. In some patients with COVID-19 and concomitant neurological symptoms, cerebrospinal fluid and autopsy brain tissue have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and protein [6,7]. Recent studies in rodents have suggested that direct viral invasion of neural tissue or secondary consequences of the immune response may contribute to the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2-associated central nervous system diseases [8–10]. To date, the nature of infection and the underlying mechanisms of neurological sequelae induced by SARS-CoV-2 in elderly brain tissue remain poorly understood.
During the global Omicron wave, several studies have indicated that older people are more likely to be affected by COVID-19 [11]. According to COVID-19 guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, patients aged 50 to 64 were 4.3 times as likely to progress to severe status as those aged 18 to 39, and patients aged 85 or older had a risk ratio of 10.6. During the Omicron wave in Shanghai, a study found that 48.1% of patients with COVID-19 (average age, 70.6 years) infected with the Omicron strain experienced neurological symptoms [12]. Recent studies have shown that Omicron sublineages have altered virological characteristics, including increased immune evasion and attenuated pathogenicity, compared to previous variants [13–15]. However, it is unclear whether and how Omicron variants have different neuroinvasiveness and neurovirulence in the elderly brain. Brain organoids generated from human pluripotent stem cells have been effectively utilized to investigate the neurotropism and neurotoxic consequences of SARS-CoV-2 [16–18]. However, stem-cell-derived brain organoids recapitulate the early stages of brain development and lack nonneuronal cell types, including microglia and endothelial cells [19], and older mice rapidly died following wild-type (WT) strain infection. Thus, stem cell model and older mouse model are not suitable for evaluating the differences of WT and Omicron in the aging brain.
In this study, we first generated brain spheroids (BSs) derived from paracarcinoma tissues from patients with brain tumors and then evaluated the differences in neuroinvasiveness and neurovirulence in Omicron variants (BA.1 and BA.2) compared to the WT strain using elderly BSs. We observed that Omicron variants (especially BA.2) have markedly lower neurovirulence. Omicron BA.1/BA.2 infection induces weaker neuroinflammation than the WT strain, which may explain its neuropathological changes. Moreover, Omicron BA.1/BA.2 and WT strain infections are associated with neurodegenerative disorders by triggering neuronal degeneration and amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition.
Results
Less
Establishment of primary human brain tissue-derived elderly BSs
To model SARS-CoV-2 WT and Omicron infections on elderly human brain in vitro in physiologically relevant models, we established a new method to generate primary elderly BSs without mechanically or enzymatically dividing the removed paracarcinoma brain tissue into single cells (Fig. 1A) by referencing publications on generating glioblastoma organoids from patient tumors [20–22]. As shown in Table S1, we obtained fresh brain tissue dissected from 9 patient paracancerous samples (average age, 62 years; 6 temporal lobes and 3 frontal lobes). Optimal BSs were generated from surrounding brain tissue far from the tumor's edge. To improve nutrient absorption and promote spheroid development, we cut the brain tissue into pieces around 1 mm in diameter and cultured it in BS medium on an orbital shaker (Fig. 1A). Fragments of brain tissue generally formed spheroids in 1 to 2 weeks, and the spheroids did not show marked growth but can be viably maintained during 1 months of culture without passaging (Fig. 1B).
To assess whether BSs are similar to the original parent tissue, we performed histological analysis of the parent tissue and spheroid sections by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunofluorescence assay (IFA) staining (Fig. 1C and D and Fig. S1A and B). We observed that the cultured BSs displayed the basic cellular composition of nervous tissue, maintained parental tissue neural marker expression, and also retained CD31+ vasculature. Small numbers of apoptotic and proliferative cells were observed in BSs, which indicated that the spheroids were viable and had no marked apoptosis (Fig. 1E and F). Meanwhile, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging of a spheroid at 2 weeks confirmed the maintenance of structurally defined synapses and myelin sheath (Fig. 1G). Therefore, these data indicated that elderly BSs derived from patient paracarcinoma brain tissue would capture broad cellular diversity and complex organization of the original brain tissue.
Preservation of cellular heterogeneity and molecular signatures of primary elderly BSs
Next, we compared the cell populations and their molecular characteristics of the original brain tissue and their derived BSs to further characterize the BS models. We performed single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) analysis of frontal lobe tissue from a 59-year-old patient and corresponding BSs cultured 2 and 4 weeks (Fig. 1H). A median of 2,807 genes were found per cell after low-quality cells were eliminated, leaving 11,971 cells for biological study (Fig. S1C). The Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) approach was used to analyze transcriptional profiles of individual nuclei in 2 dimensions. Global clustering of snRNA-seq revealed 19 major populations, as indicated by marker genes that were preferentially expressed in each cluster (Fig. S1D and E). By using marker genes, these clusters may be linked to 6 distinct cell lineages, which include neurons, astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, microglia, and endothelial cells (Fig. S1F).
Many different cell clusters were identified in parental brain tissue and corresponding BSs at 2 and 4 weeks (Fig. 1I and Fig. S1G). BSs are derived from a portion of the parent brain tissue that is highly heterogeneous, and some cell subpopulations are inevitably lost. However, overall, at the single-cell level, the cells from both parental brain tissue and derived BSs exhibited similar cell lineages and clusters, which included neurons (~25%), astrocytes (~6%), oligodendrocytes (~55%), oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (~6%), microglia (~8%), and endothelial cells (Fig. 1J and Fig. S1H). The proportion of each cell lineage and cluster was similar in parental tissues and BSs (especially after 2 weeks of culture). It should be noted that the proportion and subpopulation of neurons in BS change over culture time due to spheroid are parts of the parent brain and reduced adult neurogenesis in the aging brain. Microglia in the parent tissue and brain organoids at 2 or 4 weeks show comparable expression of numerous immune-related genes, including cytokines like transforming growth factor–B (TGFB), interleukin-18 (IL18), and IL1B. This indicates that some aspects of the tissue microenvironment are retained within the brain organoids (Fig. 1K). These results imply that the cellular diversity and molecular characteristics of the original brain tissue are reflected in elderly brain organoids cultures.
Elderly BSs are permissive to SARS-CoV-2 WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 infections
To investigate the effects of Omicron infection on the elderly brain and its induced neuropathology (Fig. 2A), we exposed BSs from non-COVID-19 elderly individuals to live SARS-CoV-2 WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.1 for 8 h. The samples were then analyzed at 24 and 72 h after infection (hpi). The presence of viral nucleocapsid protein (NP) was observed in both WT- and Omicron BA.1/BA.2-infected elderly BSs, with the percentage of infected cells ranging from 8.3% to 29.4%, but the number of infected cells in WT- and Omicron-infected BSs did not significantly increase from 24 to 72 hpi (Fig. 2B), suggesting limited spread of infection within this time frame. TEM examination identified typical coronavirus particles in WT- and Omicron-infected BSs from the temporal lobe at 72 hpi (Fig. 2C).
Furthermore, the replication kinetics of WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 were compared by examining viral titers in culture supernatants and BS lysates at 2, 12, 24, and 48 hpi (Fig. 2D). We detect an increase in viral RNA in the supernatants between 2 and 12 hpi in WT-infected BSs but insignificant increase in the supernatants of Omicron BA.1/BA.2-infected BSs. Meanwhile, slight increase in intracellular viral RNA was observed in all infection groups except the BA.2-infected BSs-1. Again, this trend was observed in BSs derived from 6 other individual brain samples (5 temporal lobes and 1 frontal lobe; average age, 64.8 years; range, 57 to 72 years). In these samples, the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the culture supernatant from WT-infected BSs at 72 hpi was 5.01 times higher (P = 0.032) and 9.33 times higher (P = 0.027) than that in BA.1- and BA.2-infected samples, respectively (Fig. S2A to C). The median tissue culture infectious dose assay also showed that the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variant produced significantly less infectious virus particles at 48 hpi compared with SARS-CoV-2 WT (Fig. 2E). These results suggested that (a) elderly BSs were permissive to WT and Omicron strain infections, but both WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 do not actively replicate in BSs; (b) the brain organoids can only transiently (12 to 24 hpi) support the SARS-CoV-2 WT replication after the viral entry; (c) the increasing viral RNA can be only detected in WT-infected organoids highlighting the difference in virus release efficiency between WT and Omicron variants. It is possible that Omicron BA.1/BA.2 enters BSs but does not actively replicate by limiting the release of virus particles. There are several studies that have reported that SARS-CoV-2 is able to infect human induced-pluripotent-stem-cell-derived brain organoids/neurons but that this infection is abortive and does not result in virus spread to other cells [16,23].
On the basis of the susceptibility of BSs to WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2, the expression of known SARS-CoV-2 receptors was investigated. snRNA-seq analysis indicated that angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease, serine 2(TMPRSS2) mRNAs were almost undetected in all neural cell types; however, astrocytes, microglia, and endothelial cells expressed high mRNA levels of the alternative receptors neuropilin 1 (NRP1), CD147, and tyrosine-protein kinase receptor UFO (AXL) (Fig. 3F). IFA confirmed that BSs/astrocytes did not express ACE2 and TMPRSS2 but strongly expressed NRP1 and CD147 (Fig. 2G and Fig. S2D).
SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1/BA.2 infection shows ameliorated neuropathological injury compared to the WT strain
To further examine the impact of Omicron variant infection on neurological damage in BSs compared to the WT strain, formalin-fixed elderly BSs (3 temporal lobes and 1 frontal lobe) from SARS-CoV-2 infection at 72 hpi were analyzed for histology and immunohistochemistry evaluation. We found that scattered chromatolytic neurons were more likely to be found in BSs infected with WT than in those infected with Omicron BA.1/BA.2 (Fig. 3A). Chromatolysis is an induced response of the cell usually triggered by neurotoxicity, cell exhaustion, and virus infections, and it is a precursor of cell death [24]. We further evaluated apoptosis induction in the infected BSs by terminal-deoxynucleotidyl-transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end labeling (TUNEL) immunostaining. In addition, both WT and Omicron strain infections induced significant apoptosis in BSs, but Omicron BA.1/BA.2 triggered lower apoptosis compared with that of WT strain (Fig. 3B).
Histology analysis of elderly BSs containing myelin sheath and Luxol fast blue staining showed that WT or Omicron BA.1 infection caused significant loss of myelin but attenuated myelin injury was observed in Omicron BA.2-infected BSs when compared with WT infection (Fig. 3C). In addition, staining for myelin basic protein (MBP) revealed substantial demyelination in BSs infected with the WT or Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variants, with less demyelination observed in those infected with the Omicron BA.2 variant compared to the WT strain (Fig. 3D). Furthermore, there was a notable increase in activated astrocytes (astrogliosis) in the areas of demyelination in BSs infected with the WT or Omicron BA.1 variants, but less astrogliosis was observed in those infected with the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variants compared to the WT strain (Fig. 3E). IFA staining showed that there was a substantial increase in microglial (IBA1+ cells) number in WT- and BA.1/BA.2-infected BSs compared with mock-infected BSs, which was especially prominent in WT-infected elderly BSs (Fig. 3F). Overall, these findings suggest that both the WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 lead to neuropathological damage in the aging brain but the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 mitigate this damage to some extent.
SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1/BA.2 has no significant difference in neurotropism compared to the WT strain
The predictability of SARS-CoV-2 virulence evolution is complex because of various mechanisms, such as changes in transmission routes and tropism, competition within the host, and interactions with the immune system [25,26]. To identify whether the Omicron variant has different neurotropisms contribute to their less brain damage compared with WT strains, we utilized markers of astrocytes, neurons, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and endothelial cells costained with viral NP protein in BSs derived from 4 elderly individual brain samples (3 temporal lobes and 1 frontal lobe). On average, NP protein was detected in 15.55%, 11.92%, and 12.82% of the cells in WT-, BA.1-, and BA.2-infected BSs, respectively (Fig. 4A and B). However, the difference in infection levels did not reach statistical significance. We observed widespread infection in astrocytes regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 strain, with approximately 50% of infected cells expressing glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) (Fig. 4A and C). However, there was no significant difference in infections of astrocytes, neurons, microglia, and oligodendrocytes between the WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 strains (Fig. 4A and C). We also found that brain endothelial cells can be infected with WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 (Fig. S3). These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 tends to infect astrocytes, consistent with previous human postmortem brain study [27], but Omicron BA.1/BA.2 does not show a difference in neurotropism compared to the WT strain in the aging brain.
SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1/BA.2 infection induces a weaker neuroinflammatory response than the WT strain in BSs
To uncover mechanisms of SARS-CoV2 Omicron-induced ameliorated neuropathological injury, we performed RNA-seq analysis in control, WT-, and Omicron BA.1/BA.2-infected BSs derived from 4 elderly individual brain samples (3 temporal lobes and 1 frontal lobe) at 72 hpi. Principal components analysis (PCA) showed clustering of biological replicates within different SARS-CoV-2 strain infection groups (Fig. 5A). Interestingly, comparing Omicron variants with the WT strain, a volcano plot showed that many chemokines/cytokines, including CXCL3, CXCL2, and IL23A, were down-regulated in BA.1/BA.2-infected BSs (Fig. 5B). Comparing BA.2 or BA.1 with the WT strain, Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis highlighted the common down-regulated pathways related to involve in immune response and inflammatory response (Fig. 5C and D and Fig. S4). Closer examination of gene sets involved in neuroinflammation mediators found that the WT strain induced up-regulation of a broader range of inflammation-related genes compared with the BA.1 or BA.2 strain (Fig. 5E). We confirmed reduced induction of a subset of genes (IL6, CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL3, CXCL8, and IL1B) by Omicron BA.1 or BA.2 compared with WT and validated an increase in colony-stimulating factor 3 (CSF3) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) after infection with all evaluated SARS-CoV-2 strains by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) (Fig. 5F). Altogether, the evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers neuroinflammation, while Omicron BA.1/BA.2 infection elicits a less neuroinflammatory response compared to the original strain in elderly BSs. This may explain why SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 or BA.2 is less neuropathogenic than the WT strain.
SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1/BA.2 and WT strain infections disrupt neural network activity associated with neurodegenerative disorders
To further assess the functional consequences of infection with different SARS-CoV-2 strains in BSs at the molecular level, we reanalyzed the preceding RNA-seq dataset. Thousands of genes were differentially expressed in WT- and Omicron BA.1/BA.2-infected BSs compared with uninfected controls at 72 hpi (Fig. 6A). KEGG and GO analyses of up-regulated genes at 72 hpi revealed common enrichment for genes associated with neurodegenerative disease, viral transcription, immune response, cytokine- and chemokine-mediated signaling pathways, neutrophil chemotaxis and degranulation, and cell apoptosis for both WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 strains (Fig. 6B and D and Fig. S5A). Conversely, KEGG and GO analyses of down-regulated genes showed common enrichment for genes related to cytoskeleton remodeling, calcium signaling pathway, axon guidance, neurohormonal signaling pathways, and maintaining blood–brain barrier permeability for both strains (Fig. 6B and D and Fig. S5A). We further validated that several pathway networks in WT- and Omicron-infected BSs were similar to those in brain autopsy tissues of patients with COVID-19 (Fig. 6C and Fig. S5B) [28]. Taken together, SARS-CoV-2 WT and Omicron activate broad immune response and disrupted neural network activity in elderly BSs.
There is growing evidence to suggest that COVID-19 infection may disrupt the progression of Parkinson's disease (PD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), potentially worsening symptoms or accelerating disease progression [29,30]. We aimed to directly investigate the potential link between COVID-19 and neurodegenerative disorders. First, we found strong associations between neurodegenerative diseases, including AD and PD, and WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 infections (Fig. 6E). In addition, we observed the presence of Fluoro-Jade C-positive degenerating neurons in WT- and Omicron BA.1/BA.2-infected BSs, which were not present in mock-infected spheroids or their original brain tissue (Fig. S6A), with no significant differences in the numbers of degenerating neurons between the 2 strains (Fig. 6F). We also focused on the preclinical marker of AD, cellular Aβ, and found that cellular Aβ aggregates were present in WT- and Omicron BA.1/BA.2-infected spheroids but not in mock-infected spheroids or their original brain tissue (Fig. 6G and Fig. S6B). Immunofluorescence analysis with thioflavin-S confirmed that the cytoplasmic deposition of Aβ in WT- and Omicron BA.1/BA.2-infected spheroids consisted of aggregated Aβ, which was not observed in their original brain tissue (Fig. 6H and Fig. S6C). Therefore, infection with WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 strains may potentially trigger or worsen neurodegenerative disorders in older individuals.
Discussion
Less
In this study, we provided a rapid and efficient way of generating 3-dimensional elderly BSs from surgically removed elderly human brain tissue by avoiding single-cell dissociation. These BSs recapitulate, at least partially, the multicellular composition and native cell–cell interactions of the parent brain tissue. This is supported by histology and immunohistology showing similar tissue organization and various cell types, as well as snRNA-seq demonstrating the preservation of different cell populations and their gene expression patterns. Recently, human fetal brain organoids with consistent molecular profiles and cellular heterogeneity were established using a similar methodology [31]. Because of reduced adult neurogenesis, the proportion and subpopulation of neurons change over culture time in spheroid culture systems, which needs further optimization in the future.
We further utilized elderly BSs to study different SARS-CoV-2 strain infections and neuropathological injuries. Our data showed that elderly BSs were permissive to WT and Omicron strain infections, but both WT and Omicron BA.1/BA.2 do not actively replicate in BSs Furthermore, we found that Omicron BA.1/BA.2 produced less infectious virus particles compared with WT. Previous study found that both SARS-CoV-2 WT and Omicron strains actively replicate in stem-cell-derived brain organoids [23,32]. The reason for this discrepancy may be due to stem-cell-derived brain organoids highly expressed ACE2 and endosomal entry proteases (cathepsin B and cathepsin L). However, ACE2 and TMPRSS2 actually lowly express, but alternative receptors such as NRP1 highly express in human brain tissue and our BSs model. Thus, the SARS-CoV-2-infected BSs model could reflect the natural infection conditions of brain tissue compared with stem cell models. More recently, some studies have shown that Omicron has a lower replication efficiency in the lungs and intestines than the Delta and WT strains [14,15,33]. The decreased infection of Omicron BA.1/BA.2 might be linked to newly acquired molecular changes such as extensive mutations in the receptor binding domain of the spike protein that modulates cell entry [34,35], as well as mutations in nonstructural proteins (NSPs) that could potentially alter replication kinetics [36]. Recent studies using chimeric viruses bearing different spike proteins showed that spike is a major determinant of the Omicron-attenuated replicative phenotype [26,37,38]. In addition, a study demonstrated that Omicron NSP6 contains critical attenuating mutations, which weakened the movement of lipids to replication organelles and decreased the replication of viral RNA [39]. SARS-CoV-2 open reading frame 3a and spike proteins down-regulate tetherin, antiviral restriction factor, and promotes the release of virus [40]. It is likely that these differences in the spike protein and NSPs in Omicron BA.1/BA.2 influence their replication in the brain.
On the other hand, we found that Omicron BA.1/BA.2 was less neuropathogenic than the WT strain. Recent studies have revealed the markedly attenuated pathogenicity of Omicron in mice, hamsters, and rhesus macaques compared to the Delta and WT strains [15,41,42]. Although the attenuated pathogenicity of Omicron has been widely confirmed, the mechanisms remain unclear. The Omicron variant is a markedly different variant with numerous mutations, particularly in the spike protein and NSPs [43–45]. Some of these mutations are of concern and may be associated with their reduced pathogenicity. A study demonstrated that mutating NSP6 along with the spike protein was sufficient to recapitulate the weakened characteristics of Omicron, indicating that both the spike protein and NSP6 play crucial roles in determining the attenuated phenotype of Omicron BA.1 [46]. Thus, Omicron may have reduced clinical severity, including neurological symptoms.
We assessed the difference in within-host interactions due to Omicron variant infection using the transcriptome. In contrast to WT, Omicron BA.1/BA.2-infected elderly BSs showed a reduced neuroinflammatory response. Numerous proinflammatory cytokines exhibited decreased expression in Omicron-infected BSs compared to those infected with the WT virus, including IL6, CXCL1, CXCL2, and IL1B, which play a crucial role in attracting immune cells to infection sites. This finding is in concordance with recent in vivo inflammatory assessments in the olfactory bulb of Omicron-infected hamsters [47]. Microglia, as integral components of the immune system, serve as the brain's sentinel cells and detectors of invading pathogens. The proliferation, accumulation, and activation of microglia are typical characteristics of brain inflammation. Excessive and prolonged neuroinflammatory responses can affect brain function, including synaptic dysfunction, inhibition of neurogenesis, neural damage, and cognitive impairment [48,49]. Therefore, the differences in the neuroinflammatory response induced by Omicron infection may be linked to the degree of its neuropathogenicity. However, the mechanism of Omicron-induced neuroinflammation reduction remains unclear. The latest finding revealed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike and envelope proteins can cause neuroinflammation through Toll-like receptor signaling without the need for viral infection by functioning as a pathogen-associated molecular pattern [50–52]. The mutations of Omicron spike and envelope proteins could be a factor in their decreased inflammatory responses. Postmortem evidence showed the existence of encephalitis and/or meningoencephalitis in patients with COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 era [53,54]. Our research suggests that the risk of Omicron-induced encephalitis may be lower.
We further examined interaction networks among various SARS-CoV-2 strains and host based on BSs. The transcriptional dysregulation in BSs resulting from WT or Omicron infection indicated an inflammatory response and perturbed neural cell function. Notably, WT or Omicron infection is associated with neurodegenerative disorders, such as AD and PD. Patients with COVID-19 and survivors may suffer from a neurodegenerative syndrome, which includes symptoms such as memory loss, delirium, and cognitive deficits [55,56]. This suggests that there may be a cellular mechanism underlying these effects. We observed that Fluro-Jade C-labeled degenerating neurons and Aβ deposition were present in elderly BSs infected by WT and Omicron. A previous investigation demonstrated a shift in the distribution of tau protein from axons to the cell body, as well as increased tau phosphorylation in neurons of brain organoids following exposure to SARS-CoV-2 [16]. In addition, an unpublished study indicated that SARS-CoV-2 infects the cortexes of patients with COVID-19, leading to the induction of AD-like characteristics by activating cellular and molecular pathways associated with AD. Consequently, these findings revealed the importance of understanding the impact of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on neurodegenerative processes and underscore the need for further research in this area to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets.
Our research has some limitations. First, the sample sizes of paracancerous tissues of brain tumors were extremely limited. The BSs derived from brain tissue of different individuals encompass a diverse range of cell types, but there is great heterogeneity in different spheroids, which may limit the interpretation of the results from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Second, the absence of examination of brain tissue from patients with COVID-19 confirmed the presence of Omicron in brain tissue and its contribution to neurological disorders. Further investigations involving patients with COVID-19 could offer additional insights into how Omicron variants induce neurological manifestations.
In summary, we observed attenuated neuropathological injury caused by Omicron BA.1/BA.2 compared to the WT strain based on BSs derived from elderly human brain tissue. The Omicron BA.1/BA.2 infection induced weaker neuroinflammation than the WT strain, which may explain its neuropathological changes. In addition, both WT and Omicron infections triggered cellular and molecular neurodegenerative phenotypes. These findings provide a scientific basis for public health authorities to address the effect of COVID-19 physical, psychological, and functional sequelae to enhance the health and well-being of elderly individuals during the worldwide Omicron pandemic.
Materials and Methods
Less
Human tissue sample collection
BSs were derived from adjacent tissues in patients with non-COVID-19 primary brain tumor who underwent surgical resection. A total of 9 patients were included in the present study. Table S1 summarizes the basic patient information for each subject. The collection and use of human brain samples in our research were approved by the Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (approval no. B2020-165-01). Written informed consent was provided by the study participants.
Viruses and biosafety
WT SARS-CoV-2 (isolate Guangdong/20SF014/2020; EPI_ISL_403934) and the Omicron BA.1 and Omicron BA.2 strains were obtained from Guangdong Provincial Center for Diseases Control and Prevention and handled in a BSL-3 laboratory. The genome sequences of the BA.1 and BA.2 strains used in this study have been deposited in the GenBase of National Genomics Data Center (https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/) with submission numbers C_AA011261.1 and C_AA011262.1.
SARS-CoV-2 infection
Cultured BSs (1 to 2 weeks) were infected in a 6-well ultralow attachment plate at an MOI of 0.1 in spheroid culture medium. After virus exposure for 4 to 6 h, spheroids were washed 3 times with advanced F12 and returned to culture with spheroid culture medium. Supernatant and spheroid samples were collected at designated time points after inoculation.
Quantification and statistical analysis
All measurements are shown as the means ± SDs where appropriate. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparison of the difference between mock-, WT- and Omicron-variant-infected BSs. Cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 were manually counted over total 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole-positive (DAPI+) cells using the Cell Counter of ImageJ (National Institutes of Health). Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 9. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001; NS indicates not significant (P > 0.05).
Additional methods are provided in the Supplementary Materials.
Funding
Less
  • Guangdong Medical Research Foundation (A2023439)
  • Postdoctoral Research Foundation of China (2022M723588)
  • Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2021B1212030007)
  • Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province (2023A1515110422)
References
Less
1.
Varatharaj A, Thomas N, Ellul MA, Davies NWS, Pollak TA, Tenorio EL, Sultan M, Easton A, Breen G, Zandi M, et al. Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 in 153 patients: A UK-wide surveillance study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(10):875–882.
2.
Taquet M, Geddes JR, Husain M, Luciano S, Harrison PJ. 6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(5):416–427.
3.
The Lancet Neurology. Long COVID: Understanding the neurological effects. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):247.
4.
Mansell V, Hall Dykgraaf S, Kidd M, Goodyear-Smith F. Long COVID and older people. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3(12):e849–e854.
5.
Yoo SM, Liu TC, Motwani Y, Sim MS, Viswanathan N, Samras N, Hsu F, Wenger NS. Factors associated with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) after diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 in the inpatient and outpatient setting in a diverse cohort. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(8):1988–1995.
6.
Solomon IH, Normandin E, Bhattacharyya S, Mukerji SS, Keller K, Ali AS, Adams G, Hornick JL, Padera RF Jr, Sabeti P. Neuropathological features of Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(10):989–992.
7.
Stein SR, Ramelli SC, Grazioli A, Chung JY, Singh M, Yinda CK, Winkler CW, Sun J, Dickey JM, Ylaya K, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and persistence in the human body and brain at autopsy. Nature. 2022;612(7941):758–763.
8.
Song E, Bartley CM, Chow RD, Ngo TT, Jiang R, Zamecnik CR, Dandekar R, Loudermilk RP, Dai Y, Liu F, et al. Divergent and self-reactive immune responses in the CNS of COVID-19 patients with neurological symptoms. Cell Rep Med. 2021;2(5): Article 100288.
9.
Fernández-Castañeda A, Lu P, Geraghty AC, Song E, Lee MH, Wood J, O'Dea MR, Dutton S, Shamardani K, Nwangwu K, et al. Mild respiratory COVID can cause multi-lineage neural cell and myelin dysregulation. Cell. 2022;185(14):2452–2468.e16.
10.
Soung AL, Vanderheiden A, Nordvig AS, Sissoko CA, Canoll P, Mariani MB, Jiang X, Bricker T, Rosoklija GB, Arango V, et al. COVID-19 induces CNS cytokine expression and loss of hippocampal neurogenesis. Brain. 2022;145(12):4193–4201.
11.
Lu G, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Ai J, He L, Yuan X, Bao S, Chen X, Wang H, Cai J, et al. Geriatric risk and protective factors for serious COVID-19 outcomes among older adults in Shanghai Omicron wave. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):2045–2054.
12.
Shen X, Wang P, Shen J, Jiang Y, Wu L, Nie X, Liu J, Chen W. Neurological manifestations of hospitalized patients with mild to moderate infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Shanghai, China. J Infect Public Health. 2023;16(2):155–162.
13.
Qu P, Evans JP, Faraone JN, Zheng YM, Carlin C, Anghelina M, Stevens P, Fernandez S, Jones D, Lozanski G, et al. Enhanced neutralization resistance of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BA.4.6, BF.7, and BA.2.75.2. Cell Host Microbe. 2023;31(1):9–17.e3.
14.
Shuai H, Chan JF, Hu B, Chai Y, Yuen TT, Yin F, Huang X, Yoon C, Hu JC, Liu H, et al. Attenuated replication and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron. Nature. 2022;603(7902):693–699.
15.
Suzuki R, Yamasoba D, Kimura I, Wang L, Kishimoto M, Ito J, Morioka Y, Nao N, Nasser H, Uriu K, et al. Attenuated fusogenicity and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Nature. 2022;603(7902):700–705.
16.
Ramani A, Müller L, Ostermann PN, Gabriel E, Abida-Islam P, Müller-Schiffmann A, Mariappan A, Goureau O, Gruell H, Walker A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 targets neurons of 3D human brain organoids. EMBO J. 2020;39(20): Article e106230.
17.
Jacob F, Pather SR, Huang WK, Zhang F, Wong SZH, Zhou H, Cubitt B, Fan W, Chen CZ, Xu M, et al. Human pluripotent stem cell-derived neural cells and brain organoids reveal SARS-CoV-2 neurotropism predominates in choroid plexus epithelium. Cell Stem Cell. 2020;27(6):937–950.e9.
18.
Zhang B-Z, Chu H, Han S, Shuai H, Deng J, Hu YF, Gong HR, Lee AC, Zou Z, Yau T, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infects human neural progenitor cells and brain organoids. Cell Res. 2020;30(10):928–931.
19.
Eichmüller OL, Knoblich JA. Human cerebral organoids - A new tool for clinical neurology research. Nat Rev Neurol. 2022;18(11):661–680.
20.
Hubert CG, Rivera M, Spangler LC, Wu Q, Mack SC, Prager BC, Couce M, McLendon RE, Sloan AE, Rich JN. A three-dimensional organoid culture system derived from human glioblastomas recapitulates the hypoxic gradients and cancer stem cell heterogeneity of tumors found in vivo. Cancer Res. 2016;76(8):2465–2477.
21.
Jacob F, Salinas RD, Zhang DY, Nguyen PTT, Schnoll JG, Wong SZH, Thokala R, Sheikh S, Saxena D, Prokop S, et al. A patient-derived glioblastoma organoid model and biobank recapitulates inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity. Cell. 2020;180(1):188–204.e22.
22.
Jacob F, Ming GL, Song H. Generation and biobanking of patient-derived glioblastoma organoids and their application in CAR T cell testing. Nat Protoc. 2020;15(12):4000–4033.
23.
Kong W, Montano M, Corley MJ, Helmy E, Kobayashi H, Kinisu M, Suryawanshi R, Luo X, Royer LA, Roan NR, et al. Neuropilin-1 mediates SARS-CoV-2 infection of astrocytes in brain organoids, inducing inflammation leading to dysfunction and death of neurons. mBio. 2022;13(6): Article e0230822.
24.
Stoica BA, Faden AI. Cell death mechanisms and modulation in traumatic brain injury. Neurotherapeutics. 2010;7(1):3–12.
25.
Alizon S, Hurford A, Mideo N, Van Baalen M. Virulence evolution and the trade-off hypothesis: History, current state of affairs and the future. J Evol Biol. 2009;22(2):245–259.
26.
Carabelli AM, Peacock TP, Thorne LG, Harvey WT, Hughes J; COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium, Peacock SJ, Barclay WS, de Silva TI, Towers GJ, Robertson DL. SARS-CoV-2 variant biology: Immune escape, transmission and fitness. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023;21(3):162–177.
27.
Crunfli F, Carregari VC, Veras FP, Silva LS, Nogueira MH, Antunes A, Vendramini PH, Valença AGF, Brandão-Teles C, Zuccoli GDS, et al. Morphological, cellular, and molecular basis of brain infection in COVID-19 patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2022;119(35): Article e2200960119.
28.
Mavrikaki M, Lee JD, Solomon IH, Slack FJ. Severe COVID-19 is associated with molecular signatures of aging in the human brain. Nature. Aging. 2022;2(12):1130–1137.
29.
Wang L, Davis PB, Volkow ND, Berger NA, Kaelber DC, Xu R. Association of COVID-19 with new-onset Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2022;89(2):411–414.
30.
Xu E, Xie Y, Al-Aly Z. Long-term neurologic outcomes of COVID-19. Nat Med. 2022;28(11):2406–2415.
31.
Hendriks D, Pagliaro A, Andreatta F, Ma Z, van Giessen J, Massalini S, López-Iglesias C, van Son GJF, DeMartino J, Damen JMA, et al. Human fetal brain self-organizes into long-term expanding organoids. Cell. 2024;187(3):712–732.e38.
32.
Hou Y, Li C, Yoon C, Leung OW, You S, Cui X, Chan JF, Pei D, Cheung HH, Chu H. Enhanced replication of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 in human forebrain and midbrain organoids. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):381.
33.
Miyakawa K, Machida M, Kawasaki T, Nishi M, Akutsu H, Ryo A. Reduced replication efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant in “mini-gut” organoids. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(2):514–516.
34.
Meng B, Abdullahi A, Ferreira I, Goonawardane N, Saito A, Kimura I, Yamasoba D, Gerber PP, Fatihi S, Rathore S, et al. Altered TMPRSS2 usage by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron impacts infectivity and fusogenicity. Nature. 2022;603(7902):706–714.
35.
Willett BJ, Grove J, MacLean OA, Wilkie C, De Lorenzo G, Furnon W, Cantoni D, Scott S, Logan N, Ashraf S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron is an immune escape variant with an altered cell entry pathway. Nat Microbiol. 2022;7(8):1161–1179.
36.
Ichikawa T, Torii S, Suzuki H, Takada A, Suzuki S, Nakajima M, Tampo A, Kakinoki Y. Mutations in the nonstructural proteins of SARS-CoV-2 may contribute to adverse clinical outcome in patients with COVID-19. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;122:123–129.
37.
Barut GT, Halwe NJ, Taddeo A, Kelly JN, Schön J, Ebert N, Ulrich L, Devisme C, Steiner S, Trüeb BS, et al. The spike gene is a major determinant for the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-BA.1 phenotype. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1): Article 5929.
38.
Escalera A, Laporte M, Turner S, Karakus U, Gonzalez-Reiche AS, van de Guchte A, Farrugia K, Khalil Z, van Bakel H, Smith D, et al. The impact of S2 mutations on Omicron SARS-CoV-2 cell surface expression and fusogenicity. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2023;13(1): Article 2297553.
39.
Taha TY, Chen IP, Hayashi JM, Tabata T, Walcott K, Kimmerly GR, Syed AM, Ciling A, Suryawanshi RK, Martin HS, et al. Rapid assembly of SARS-CoV-2 genomes reveals attenuation of the Omicron BA.1 variant through NSP6. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1): Article 2308.
40.
Stewart H, Palmulli R, Johansen KH, McGovern N, Shehata OM, Carnell GW, Jackson HK, Lee JS, Brown JC, Burgoyne T, et al. Tetherin antagonism by SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a and spike protein enhances virus release. EMBO Rep. 2023;24(12): Article e57224.
41.
Halfmann PJ, Iida S, Iwatsuki-Horimoto K, Maemura T, Kiso M, Scheaffer SM, Darling TL, Joshi A, Loeber S, Singh G, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron virus causes attenuated disease in mice and hamsters. Nature. 2022;603(7902):687–692.
42.
van Doremalen N, Singh M, Saturday TA, Yinda CK, Perez-Perez L, Bohler WF, Weishampel ZA, Lewis M, Schulz JE, Williamson BN, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 are attenuated in rhesus macaques as compared to Delta. Sci Adv. 2022;8(46): Article eade1860.
43.
Alkhatib M, Salpini R, Carioti L, Ambrosio FA, D'Anna S, Duca L, Costa G, Bellocchi MC, Piermatteo L, Artese A, et al. Update on SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern and its peculiar mutational profile. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(2): Article e0273221.
44.
Yang Q, Syed AAS, Fahira A, Shi Y. Structural analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant proteins. Research. 2021;2021: Article 9769586.
45.
Yang Q, Jian X, Syed AAS, Fahira A, Zheng C, Zhu Z, Wang K, Zhang J, Wen Y, Li Z, et al. Structural comparison and drug screening of spike proteins of ten SARS-CoV-2 variants. Research. 2022;2022: Article 9781758.
46.
Chen D-Y, Chin CV, Kenney D, Tavares AH, Khan N, Conway HL, Liu G, Choudhary MC, Gertje HP, O'Connell AK, et al. Spike and nsp6 are key determinants of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 attenuation. Nature. 2023;615(7950):143–150.
47.
Bauer L, Rissmann M, Benavides FFW, Leijten L, van Run P, Begeman L, Veldhuis Kroeze EJB, Lendemeijer B, Smeenk H, de Vrij FMS, et al. In vitro and in vivo differences in neurovirulence between D614G, Delta and Omicron BA.1 SARS-CoV-2 variants. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2022;10(1): Article 124.
48.
Lyman M, Lloyd DG, Ji X, Vizcaychipi MP, Ma D. Neuroinflammation: The role and consequences. Neurosci Res. 2014;79:1–12.
49.
Gilhus NE, Deuschl G. Neuroinflammation - A common thread in neurological disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(8):429–430.
50.
Frank MG, Nguyen KH, Ball JB, Hopkins S, Kelley T, Baratta MV, Fleshner M, Maier SF. SARS-CoV-2 spike S1 subunit induces neuroinflammatory, microglial and behavioral sickness responses: Evidence of PAMP-like properties. Brain Behav Immun. 2022;100:267–277.
51.
Frank MG, Fleshner M, Maier SF. Exploring the immunogenic properties of SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins: PAMP:TLR signaling in the mediation of the neuroinflammatory and neurologic sequelae of COVID-19. Brain Behav Immun. 2023;111:259–269.
52.
Su W, Ju J, Gu M, Wang X, Liu S, Yu J, Mu D. SARS-CoV-2 envelope protein triggers depression-like behaviors and dysosmia via TLR2-mediated neuroinflammation in mice. J Neuroinflammation. 2023;20(1): Article 110.
53.
Moriguchi T, Harii N, Goto J, Harada D, Sugawara H, Takamino J, Ueno M, Sakata H, Kondo K, Myose N, et al. A first case of meningitis/encephalitis associated with SARS-coronavirus-2. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;94:55–58.
54.
Pilotto A, Odolini S, Masciocchi S, Comelli A, Volonghi I, Gazzina S, Nocivelli S, Pezzini A, Focà E, Caruso A, et al. Steroid-responsive encephalitis in coronavirus disease 2019. Ann Neurol. 2020;88(2):423–427.
55.
Taquet M, Sillett R, Zhu L, Mendel J, Camplisson I, Dercon Q, Harrison PJ. Neurological and psychiatric risk trajectories after SARS-CoV-2 infection: An analysis of 2-year retrospective cohort studies including 1 284 437 patients. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(10):815–827.
56.
Jaywant A, Vanderlind WM, Alexopoulos GS, Fridman CB, Perlis RH, Gunning FM. Frequency and profile of objective cognitive deficits in hospitalized patients recovering from COVID-19. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2021;46(13):2235–2240.
Appendix
Less
Year 2024 volume 7 Issue 5
PDF
143
64
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.34133/research.0376
  • Receive Date：2023-12-10
  • Online Date：2025-07-24
  • Published：2024-05-13
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received：2023-12-10
  • Accepted：2024-04-13
Funding
Guangdong Medical Research Foundation (A2023439)
Postdoctoral Research Foundation of China (2022M723588)
Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2021B1212030007)
Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province (2023A1515110422)
Affiliations
    1Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
    2 Institute of Precision Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
    3Department of Neurosurgery/Neuro-Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC), Guangzhou 510000, China.
    4 Guangdong Provincial Institution of Public Health, Guangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 510000, China.
    5Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.
    6Department of Medicine and Therapeutics and Institute of Digestive Disease, State Key Laboratory of Digestive Disease, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR 999077, China.
    7Department of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China.

Corresponding:

* Address correspondence to: (X.L.); (H.X.); (J.L.)
References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/research/EN/10.34133/research.0376
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family		 属数
Number of
genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)		 属
Genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT
Links
Articles
Latest Articles
Most Read
Collections
Updates
Events
News
Multimedia
About
About Us
Contact
No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing
100081
010-62199257
qkjq@cast.org.cn

Copyright © 2025 China Association for Science and Technology. All rights reserved. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.
Sponsored by the Office of the Leading Group for Cybersecurity and Informatization of CAST, and supported by Science and Technology Review Publishing House