Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 556

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

IFN-I response timing relative to virus replication determines MERS coronavirus infection outcomes

Open access
Channappanavar, Rudragouda, Fehr, Anthony R., Zheng, Jian, Wohlford-Lenane, Christine, Abrahante, Juan E., Mack, Matthias, Sompallae, Ramakrishna, McCray, Paul B., Meyerholz, David K., Perlman, Stanley·2019·Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Type 1 IFNs (IFN-I) generally protect mammalian hosts from virus infections, but in some cases, IFN-I is pathogenic. Because IFN-I is protective, it is commonly used to treat virus infections for which no specific approved drug or vaccine is available. The Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is such an infection, yet little is known about the role of IFN-I in this setting. Here, we show that IFN-I signaling is protective during MERS-CoV infection. Blocking IFN-I signaling resulted in delayed virus clearance, enhanced neutrophil infiltration, and impaired MERS-CoV-specific T cell responses. Notably, IFN-I administration within 1 day after infection (before virus titers peak) protected mice from lethal infection, despite a decrease in IFN-stimulated gene (ISG) and inflammatory cytokine gene expression. In contrast, delayed IFN-β treatment failed to effectively inhibit virus replication, increased infiltration and activation of monocytes, macrophages, and neutrophils in the lungs, and enhanced proinflammatory cytokine expression, resulting in fatal pneumonia in an otherwise sublethal infection. Together, these results suggest that the relative timing of the IFN-I response and maximal virus replication is key in determining outcomes, at least in infected mice. By extension, IFN-αβ or combination therapy may need to be used cautiously to treat viral infections in clinical settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1172/jci126363

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 556

Metadata

Authors
Channappanavar, R., Fehr, A. R., Zheng, J., Wohlford-Lenane, C., Abrahante, J. E., Mack, M., Sompallae, R., McCray, P. B., Meyerholz, D. K., & Perlman, S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
2019-07-29
Volume
129
Issue
9
Pages
3625-3639
ISSN
  • 0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-8238
OpenAlex
W2965379348
Cited by
556
References
8
FWCI
34.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: IFN-I response timing relative to virus replication determines MERS coronavirus infection outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1172/jci126363
The paper
Channappanavar, R., Fehr, A. R., Zheng, J., Wohlford-Lenane, C., Abrahante, J. E., Mack, M., Sompallae, R., McCray, P. B., Meyerholz, D. K., & Perlman, S. (2019). IFN-I response timing relative to virus replication determines MERS coronavirus infection outcomes. Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci126363

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.