The overexpression of SARS-CoV-2 primary receptors and co-receptors (ACE2, TMPRSS2, FURIN, and CD147) enhance the likeliness of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The genes for same receptors are overexpressed in the periodontal tissues of periodontitis patients. On the other hand, BMAL1 is recognized to play a crucial role in regulating pulmonary inflammation and enhancing susceptibility to viral infection. Silenced BMAL1 disrupts circadian transcriptional regulations, enhances vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infections, and may trigger the further production of TNF-α and other pro-inflammatory cytokines that propagate the cytokine storm and exacerbate periodontal inflammation. Therefore ACE2, TMPRSS2, FURIN, CD147, and BMAL1 are the crossroads between SARS-CoV-2 and Periodontitis genes. The enhanced expression of ACE2, TMPRSS2, FURIN, and CD147 and the diminished expression of BMAL1 may be a strategy to check both ailments simultaneously. In gene manipulation techniques, oligos are introduced, which contain all the necessary information to manipulate gene expression. The data are derived from the studies on genes' molecular patterns, including nucleotide composition, dinucleotide patterns, relative synonymous codon usage, codon usage bias, codon context, and rare and abundant codons. Such information may be used to manipulate the overexpression and underexpression of the genes at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and periodontitis to mitigate both ailments simultaneously; it can be explored to uncover possible future treatments.
Nipah (Nee-pa) viral disease is a zoonotic infection caused by Nipah virus (NiV), a paramyxovirus belonging to the genus Henipavirus of the family Paramyxoviridae. It is a biosafety level-4 pathogen, which is transmitted by specific types of fruit bats, mainly Pteropus spp. which are natural reservoir host. The disease was reported for the first time from the Kampung Sungai Nipah village of Malaysia in 1998. Human-to-human transmission also occurs. Outbreaks have been reported also from other countries in South and Southeast Asia. Phylogenetic analysis affirmed the circulation of two major clades of NiV as based on currently available complete N and G gene sequences. NiV isolates from Malaysia and Cambodia clustered together in NiV-MY clade, whereas isolates from Bangladesh and India clusterered within NiV-BD clade. NiV isolates from Thailand harboured mixed population of sequences. In humans, the virus is responsible for causing rapidly progressing severe illness which might be characterized by severe respiratory illness and/or deadly encephalitis. In pigs below six months of age, respiratory illness along with nervous symptoms may develop. Different types of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays along with molecular methods based on polymerase chain reaction have been developed for diagnostic purposes. Due to the expensive nature of the antibody drugs, identification of broad-spectrum antivirals is essential along with focusing on small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). High pathogenicity of NiV in humans, and lack of vaccines or therapeutics to counter this disease have attracted attention of researchers worldwide for developing effective NiV vaccine and treatment regimens.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.