ArticleBiology2026
Exploring Spike-Dependent and ACE2-Independent SARS-CoV-2 Interactions with Salivary Epithelial Cells in the Absence of ACE2.
Article in Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Salivary gland infection by SARS-CoV-2 requires viral entry via routes and mechanisms that remain unresolved. This study examined the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in salivary tissues and basal cell-derived human salivary progenitor cells (hS/PCs), an unstudied potential entry point for SARS-CoV-2. Multiple detection modalities, including immunocytochemistry, Western blotting, flow cytometry and RT-PCR, demonstrated a consistent lack of ACE2 protein and transcript in both tissue specimens and primary salivary epithelial cells. Antigen retrieval at pH 9 was determined to be optimal for immunodetection protocols, yet ACE2 remained undetectable. Small intestine tissue served as a positive control, confirming the validity of the methods and reagents we used. Considering there can be other receptors for SARS-CoV-2, flow cytometric analyses demonstrated that recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein failed to bind to salivary epithelial cells, in contrast to HEK293 cells engineered to overexpress ACE2, which showed robust spike binding. Additional studies showed that patient-derived salivary cells, negative for ACE2, are not infected by the SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, while ACE2-positive cells are readily infected. These findings strongly support our conclusion that salivary cells do not serve as major targets for SARS-CoV-2 infection via ACE2, spike protein, or an alternate receptor. Thus, salivary cells are unlikely major targets for SARS-CoV-2 infection, either through direct exposure to viral particles in ductal fluids or via access to basal cells across the basement membrane.
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.