ArticleBiomolecules2025
Disrupting SARS-CoV-2 Spike-ACE2 Interactions via Glycosaminoglycans in a Pseudoviral Study of Heparan Sulfate and Enoxaparin.
Article in Biomolecules, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Viral receptors as host-pathogen control nodes linking entry, signalling, and system-level pathogenesis.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 19) pandemic has underscored the urgent need for effective antiviral agents targeting viral entry mechanisms. This study investigated the inhibitory effects of heparan sulfate (HS) and enoxaparin (EX) on the interaction between the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein and the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor.
methodsA pseudovirus model was employed to evaluate the efficacy of HS and EX under different treatment strategies: pre-treatment of host cells, pre-treatment of the viral particles, and simultaneous co-treatment.
resultsBoth compounds significantly inhibited viral entry. EX exhibited a dose-dependent effect under all treatment conditions. In cell pre-treatment, EX achieved the highest levels of inhibition, whereas HS demonstrated consistent inhibitory activity that was largely concentration-independent. Viral pre-treatment revealed that both compounds effectively reduced infectivity by interfering directly with viral particles. In the co-treatment experiments, HS demonstrated superior inhibitory activity at lower concentrations compared to EX.
conclusionsThe results suggested that HS and EX inhibit SARS-CoV-2 entry via distinct mechanisms. HS likely acts via competitive inhibition at the host cell surface, while EX may bind directly to the spike protein, thereby preventing engagement with the ACE2 receptor. These findings highlight the therapeutic potential of HS and EX as entry inhibitors targeting the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further studies are warranted to evaluate their efficacy against emerging variants and in vivo models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.