Fig. 4: A comparison of viral fusogenicities of SARS-CoV-2 VOC by electrical response and viral transduction assays. | Nature Communications

Fig. 4: A comparison of viral fusogenicities of SARS-CoV-2 VOC by electrical response and viral transduction assays.

From: Recreating the biological steps of viral infection on a cell-free bioelectronic platform to profile viral variants of concern

Fig. 4

a EIS electrical signal change of fusion via early (left), late (middle) entry pathways and their statistical comparison (right, n = 6 for both pathways) using Omicron BA.1 VPP; b EIS electrical signal change of fusion via early (left), late (middle) entry pathways and their statistical comparison (right, n = 6 for both pathways) using Omicron BA.4 VPP. ΔR data are mean ± SD; statistical analysis was performed using a two-sided unpaired t test; c relative transduction efficiencies of the Wuhan-Hu-1 Spike and Omicron variant Spike-containing pseudoparticles. The transduction efficiency of VPPSpike was assessed against a positive control that contained a vesicular stomatitis virus G protein (VPPVSV) and a negative control without any envelope protein (VPPΔenv). The luciferase production of the infectious VPPSpike and VPPVSV was consistently orders of magnitude higher than VPPΔenv, indicating that the particles we produced were “active” and capable of fusion with a cell membrane. The samples labeled BA.1 and BA.4 refer to Omicron variants. All infectivity assays were completed with Vero E6 TMPRSS2 cell lines. All data above represent five technical replicates (n = 5). Error bars represent standard deviation.

Back to article page