key: cord-0711268-9dn2osxt
authors: Krasemann, Susanne; Glatzel, Markus; Pless, Ole
title: Response to: SARS-CoV-2 and type I interferon signaling in brain endothelial cells: Blurring the lines between friend or foe
date: 2022-05-10
journal: Stem Cell Reports
DOI: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2022.04.012
sha: d2413e87acfb7234e8cf4f6e6466e8744ff70f44
doc_id: 711268
cord_uid: 9dn2osxt

nan

As pointed out by Vavougios et al., correct citation is the backbone to scientific publishing. We prepared our Krasemann et al. manuscript (Krasemann et al., 2022) with utmost precision and scientific rigor, taking into account all literature published to date. Some of the references mentioned by Vavougios et al. had not been published when we submitted to Stem Cell Reports (Constant et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021; Savarraj et al., 2021; Wenzel et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021) and were therefore not cited. Some published studies were not included because of space constraints, in part resulting from specific requests during the revision, and were deprioritized; others because they did not fit the focus of our paper. Nevertheless, we believe that we discussed all relevant topic-related aspects in the Krasemann et al. manuscript sufficiently. It is reassuring to see that the majority of studies mentioned by Vavougios et al. came to similar conclusions as we did. Based on in vitro and in vivo models, Zhang et al. postulated a similar mechanism-of-action of SARS-CoV-2 at the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and we would have cited this work if it had been published earlier . The studies by Lee et al. (2021) and Paniz-Mondolfi et al. (2020) are case studies and were as such not cited by us. Several authors of the Krasemann et al. paper have conducted and published a thorough neuropathological assessment of postmortem COVID-19 brains already prior to the Lee et al. study in November 2020 (Matschke et al., 2020 , which was cited in the Krasemann et al. manuscript. Zhou et al. (2021) bring up an interesting aspect of mechanistic overlap between AD and COVID-19, but this is contextually too far from the focus of our paper.

The review by Iadecola et al. was referenced by us in the introduction section (Iadecola et al., 2020) .

The findings by Savarraj et al. nicely complement our data, since here, plasma was analyzed in rather acute COVID-19 cases (Savarraj et al., 2021) . However, this is in contrast to the patient CNS material that was used in our study, which was investigated postmortem after sometimes long disease durations. Thus, these datasets are not directly comparable. While every novel study provides another snapshot of the entire SARS-CoV-2-mediated pathomechanism, to date, it is impossible to assess what is actually happening in the human brain directly after infection with SARS-CoV-2. However, as discussed in our manuscript, cell culture models only allow for the investigation of certain aspects of SARS-CoV-2 biology, while animal models lack several disease features and the complexity of symptoms of human patients suffering from COVID-19. Further investigations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and consequences on the brain's neuro-vascular niche in a temporal and spatial manner are thus warranted.

We addressed in vitro and in vivo studies conducted with spike protein at the BBB in the discussion section of the Krasemann et al. paper (Buzhdygan et al., 2020; Rhea et al., 2021) . Both Buzhdygan et al. (2020) and Rhea et al. (2021) were published prior to the Kim et al. paper (Kim et al., 2021) .

The study by Yang et al. from the Wyss-Coray lab is a key study in the field, yet is focused on the choroid plexus in COVID-19, a topic that was not touched in our study; therefore this paper was not cited (Yang et al., 2021) .

We decided to not cite the study by Constant et al. (2021) . During the revision of our manuscript, we infected an alternative and widely accepted in vitro model based on hCMEC/D3 cells with SARS-CoV-2 and saw very different rates of infection compared to the hiPSC-BCEC model. The latter strongly correlated with data from COVID-19 postmortem tissue.

The study by Wenzel et al. (2021) , which shares authors with the Krasemann et al. study, provides interesting mechanistic insight on BBB deregulation. Nevertheless, we did not cite this study due to space constraints.

All in all, we thank Vavougios et al. for pointing out the importance of correct citation in scientific publishing, but we do think that we cited all relevant references that existed at that given time accordingly. We are especially pleased to see that a number of papers mentioned by Vavougios et al. that were published during the course of our revisions came to similar conclusions as we did.

The authors declare no competing interests.

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters barrier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in-vitro models of the human blood-brain barrier

SARS-CoV-2 Poorly Replicates in cells of the human blood-brain barrier without

Effects of COVID-19 on the nervous system

Spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 Induce Pathological Changes in Molecular Delivery and Metabolic function in the brain endothelial cells

The blood-brain barrier is dysregulated in COVID-19 and serves as a CNS entry route for SARS-CoV-2

Microvascular injury in the brains of patients with Covid-19

Neuropathology of patients with COVID-19 in Germany: a post-mortem case series

Central nervous system involvement by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)

The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the bloodbrain barrier in mice

Brain injury, endothelial injury and inflammatory markers are elevated and express sex

The SARS-CoV-2 main protease M(pro) causes microvascular brain pathology by cleaving NEMO in brain endothelial cells

Dysregulation of brain and choroid plexus cell types in severe COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier accompanied with basement membrane disruption without tight junctions alteration

Network medicine links SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection to brain microvascular injury and neuroinflammation in dementia-like cognitive impairment