The SARS‐unique domain (SUD) of SARS‐CoV and SARS‐CoV‐2 interacts with human Paip1 to enhance viral RNA translation

The ongoing outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) demonstrates the continuous threat of emerging coronaviruses (CoVs) to public health. SARS‐CoV‐2 and SARS‐CoV share an otherwise non‐conserved part of non‐structural protein 3 (Nsp3), therefore named as “SARS‐unique domain” (SUD). We previously found a yeast‐2‐hybrid screen interaction of the SARS‐CoV SUD with human poly(A)‐binding protein (PABP)‐interacting protein 1 (Paip1), a stimulator of protein translation. Here, we validate SARS‐CoV SUD:Paip1 interaction by size‐exclusion chromatography, split‐yellow fluorescent protein, and co‐immunoprecipitation assays, and confirm such interaction also between the corresponding domain of SARS‐CoV‐2 and Paip1. The three‐dimensional structure of the N‐terminal domain of SARS‐CoV SUD (“macrodomain II”, Mac2) in complex with the middle domain of Paip1, determined by X‐ray crystallography and small‐angle X‐ray scattering, provides insights into the structural determinants of the complex formation. In cellulo, SUD enhances synthesis of viral but not host proteins via binding to Paip1 in pBAC‐SARS‐CoV replicon‐transfected cells. We propose a possible mechanism for stimulation of viral translation by the SUD of SARS‐CoV and SARS‐CoV‐2.     

Molecular basis of cross‐species ACE2 interactions with SARS‐CoV‐2‐like viruses of pangolin origin

Pangolins have been suggested as potential reservoir of zoonotic viruses, including SARS‐CoV‐2 causing the global COVID‐19 outbreak. Here, we study the binding of two SARS‐CoV‐2‐like viruses isolated from pangolins, GX/P2V/2017 and GD/1/2019, to human angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (hACE2), the receptor of SARS‐CoV‐2. We find that the spike protein receptor‐binding domain (RBD) of pangolin CoVs binds to hACE2 as efficiently as the SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD in vitro. Furthermore, incorporation of pangolin CoV RBDs allows entry of pseudotyped VSV particles into hACE2‐expressing cells. A screen for binding of pangolin CoV RBDs to ACE2 orthologs from various species suggests a broader host range than that of SARS‐CoV‐2. Additionally, cryo‐EM structures of GX/P2V/2017 and GD/1/2019 RBDs in complex with hACE2 show their molecular binding in modes similar to SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD. Introducing the Q498H substitution found in pangolin CoVs into the SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD expands its binding capacity to ACE2 homologs of mouse, rat, and European hedgehog. These findings suggest that these two pangolin CoVs may infect humans, highlighting the necessity of further surveillance of pangolin CoVs.     

Characterization of the SARS‐CoV‐2 E Protein: Sequence,Structure, Viroporin,and Inhibitors

The COVID‐19 epidemic is one of the most influential epidemics in history. Understanding the impact of coronaviruses (CoVs) on host cells is very important for disease treatment. The SARS‐CoV‐2 envelope (E) protein is a small structural protein involved in many aspects of the viral life cycle. The E protein promotes the packaging and reproduction of the virus, and deletion of this protein weakens or even abolishes the virulence. This review aims to establish new knowledge by combining recent advances in the study of the SARS‐CoV‐2 E protein and by comparing it with the SARS‐CoV E protein. The E protein amino acid sequence, structure, self‐assembly characteristics, viroporin mechanisms and inhibitors are summarized and analyzed herein. Although the mechanisms of the SARS‐CoV‐2 and SARS‐CoV E proteins are similar in many respects, specific studies on the SARS‐CoV‐2 E protein, for both monomers and oligomers, are still lacking. A comprehensive understanding of this protein should prompt further studies on the design and characterization of effective targeted therapeutic measures.     

A simple reverse genetics method to generate recombinant coronaviruses

Engineering recombinant viruses is a pre‐eminent tool for deciphering the biology of emerging viral pathogens such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). However, the large size of coronavirus genomes renders the current reverse genetics methods challenging. Here, we describe a simple method based on “infectious subgenomic amplicons” (ISA) technology to generate recombinant infectious coronaviruses with no need for reconstruction of the complete genomic cDNA and apply this method to SARS‐CoV‐2 and also to the feline enteric coronavirus. In both cases we rescue wild‐type viruses with biological characteristics similar to original strains. Specific mutations and fluorescent red reporter genes can be readily incorporated into the SARS‐CoV‐2 genome enabling the generation of a genomic variants and fluorescent reporter strains for in vivo experiments, serological diagnosis, and antiviral assays. The swiftness and simplicity of the ISA method has the potential to facilitate the advance of coronavirus reverse genetics studies, to explore the molecular biological properties of the SARS‐CoV‐2 variants, and to accelerate the development of effective therapeutic reagents.     

The viral era: New biotechnologies give humans an unprecedented control over Nature and require appropriate safeguards

New biotechnologies such as gene drives and engineered viruses herald a viral era that would give humans exceptional power over any organism at the level of the genotype. Subject Categories: Synthetic Biology & Biotechnology, S&S: Economics & Business, Ecology

We are entering a new phase in our relationship with nature: after mechanization, automation and digitalization, a new era of autonomous technical objects is dawning. The most advanced of these technologies are characterized by viral behaviour. The COVID‐19 pandemic has again aptly demonstrated the power of viral systems: not only because of the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus'' ability to jump into and rapidly spread among the human population while wreaking havoc with human societies, but also because some of the vaccines developed against the virus are themselves based on viruses. Both developments give us some ideas of the possible impact of new biotechnologies that aim to create artefacts with viral behaviour in order to shape and control our natural environment. In this essay, the focus is on the use of genetically engineered organisms and the genetic manipulation of wild species. This change has a more direct relationship to our natural environment than autonomous software artefacts such as computer apps or digital viruses that “live” in their artificial “ecosystems” of information‐processing devices. The development of artificial biological systems will therefore require new methods for monitoring and intervention given their potential to autonomously spread within natural ecosystems.     

Nonproductive exposure of PBMCs to SARS‐CoV‐2 induces cell‐intrinsic innate immune responses

Cell‐intrinsic responses mounted in PBMCs during mild and severe COVID‐19 differ quantitatively and qualitatively. Whether they are triggered by signals emitted by productively infected cells of the respiratory tract or result from physical interaction with virus particles remains unclear. Here, we analyzed susceptibility and expression profiles of PBMCs from healthy donors upon ex vivo exposure to SARS‐CoV and SARS‐CoV‐2. In line with the absence of detectable ACE2 receptor expression, human PBMCs were refractory to productive infection. RT–PCR experiments and single‐cell RNA sequencing revealed JAK/STAT‐dependent induction of interferon‐stimulated genes (ISGs) but not proinflammatory cytokines. This SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific response was most pronounced in monocytes. SARS‐CoV‐2‐RNA‐positive monocytes displayed a lower ISG signature as compared to bystander cells of the identical culture. This suggests a preferential invasion of cells with a low ISG baseline profile or delivery of a SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific sensing antagonist upon efficient particle internalization. Together, nonproductive physical interaction of PBMCs with SARS‐CoV‐2‐ and, to a much lesser extent, SARS‐CoV particles stimulate JAK/STAT‐dependent, monocyte‐accentuated innate immune responses that resemble those detected in vivo in patients with mild COVID‐19.     

Molecular basis of cross‐species ACE2 interactions with SARS‐CoV‐2‐like viruses of pangolin origin

Correction to: The EMBO Journal (2021) 40: e107786. DOI 10.15252/embj.2021107786 | Published online 8 June 2021The authors would like to add three references to the paper: Starr et al and Zahradník et al also reported that the Q498H or Q498R mutation has enhanced binding affinity to ACE2; and Liu et al reported on the binding of bat coronavirus to ACE2.Starr et al and Zahradník et al have now been cited in the Discussion section, and the following sentence has been corrected from:“According to our data, the SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD with Q498H increases the binding strength to hACE2 by 5‐fold, suggesting the Q498H mutant is more ready to interact with human receptor than the wildtype and highlighting the necessity for more strict control of virus and virus‐infected animals”.to“Here, according to our data and two recently published papers, the SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD with Q498H or Q498R increases the binding strength to hACE2 (Starr et al, 2020; Zahradník et al, 2021), suggesting the mutant with Q498H or Q498R is more ready to interact with human receptor than the wild type and highlighting the necessity for more strict control of virus and virus‐infected animals”.The Liu et al citation has been added to the following sentence:“In another paper published by our group recently, RaTG13 RBD was found to bind to hACE2 with much lower binding affinity than SARS‐CoV‐2 though RaTG13 displays the highest whole‐genome sequence identity (96.2%) with the SARS‐CoV‐2 (Liu et al, 2021)”.Additionally, the authors have added the GISAID accession IDs to the sequence names of the SARS‐CoV‐2 in two human samples (Discussion section). To make identification unambiguous, the sequence names have been updated from “SA‐lsf‐27 and SA‐lsf‐37” to “GISAID accession ID: EPI_ISL_672581 and EPI_ISL_672589”.Lastly, the authors declare in the Materials and Methods section that all experiments employed SARS‐CoV‐2 pseudovirus in cultured cells. These experiments were performed in a BSL‐2‐level laboratory and approved by Science and Technology Conditions Platform Office, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences.These changes are herewith incorporated into the paper.     

Opposing activities of IFITM proteins in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

Interferon‐induced transmembrane proteins (IFITMs) restrict infections by many viruses, but a subset of IFITMs enhance infections by specific coronaviruses through currently unknown mechanisms. We show that SARS‐CoV‐2 Spike‐pseudotyped virus and genuine SARS‐CoV‐2 infections are generally restricted by human and mouse IFITM1, IFITM2, and IFITM3, using gain‐ and loss‐of‐function approaches. Mechanistically, SARS‐CoV‐2 restriction occurred independently of IFITM3 S‐palmitoylation, indicating a restrictive capacity distinct from reported inhibition of other viruses. In contrast, the IFITM3 amphipathic helix and its amphipathic properties were required for virus restriction. Mutation of residues within the IFITM3 endocytosis‐promoting YxxФ motif converted human IFITM3 into an enhancer of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and cell‐to‐cell fusion assays confirmed the ability of endocytic mutants to enhance Spike‐mediated fusion with the plasma membrane. Overexpression of TMPRSS2, which increases plasma membrane fusion versus endosome fusion of SARS‐CoV‐2, attenuated IFITM3 restriction and converted amphipathic helix mutants into infection enhancers. In sum, we uncover new pro‐ and anti‐viral mechanisms of IFITM3, with clear distinctions drawn between enhancement of viral infection at the plasma membrane and amphipathicity‐based mechanisms used for endosomal SARS‐CoV‐2 restriction.     

Neutralization of SARS‐CoV‐2 by highly potent,hyperthermostable, and mutation‐tolerant nanobodies

Monoclonal anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulins represent a treatment option for COVID‐19. However, their production in mammalian cells is not scalable to meet the global demand. Single‐domain (VHH) antibodies (also called nanobodies) provide an alternative suitable for microbial production. Using alpaca immune libraries against the receptor‐binding domain (RBD) of the SARS‐CoV‐2 Spike protein, we isolated 45 infection‐blocking VHH antibodies. These include nanobodies that can withstand 95°C. The most effective VHH antibody neutralizes SARS‐CoV‐2 at 17–50 pM concentration (0.2–0.7 µg per liter), binds the open and closed states of the Spike, and shows a tight RBD interaction in the X‐ray and cryo‐EM structures. The best VHH trimers neutralize even at 40 ng per liter. We constructed nanobody tandems and identified nanobody monomers that tolerate the K417N/T, E484K, N501Y, and L452R immune‐escape mutations found in the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Epsilon, Iota, and Delta/Kappa lineages. We also demonstrate neutralization of the Beta strain at low‐picomolar VHH concentrations. We further discovered VHH antibodies that enforce native folding of the RBD in the E. coli cytosol, where its folding normally fails. Such “fold‐promoting” nanobodies may allow for simplified production of vaccines and their adaptation to viral escape‐mutations.     

Interactomes of SARS‐CoV‐2 and human coronaviruses reveal host factors potentially affecting pathogenesis

Host–virus protein–protein interactions play key roles in the life cycle of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). We conducted a comprehensive interactome study between the virus and host cells using tandem affinity purification and proximity‐labeling strategies and identified 437 human proteins as the high‐confidence interacting proteins. Further characterization of these interactions and comparison to other large‐scale study of cellular responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection elucidated how distinct SARS‐CoV‐2 viral proteins participate in its life cycle. With these data mining, we discovered potential drug targets for the treatment of COVID‐19. The interactomes of two key SARS‐CoV‐2‐encoded viral proteins, NSP1 and N, were compared with the interactomes of their counterparts in other human coronaviruses. These comparisons not only revealed common host pathways these viruses manipulate for their survival, but also showed divergent protein–protein interactions that may explain differences in disease pathology. This comprehensive interactome of SARS‐CoV‐2 provides valuable resources for the understanding and treating of this disease.     

Biparatopic sybodies neutralize SARS‐CoV‐2 variants of concern and mitigate drug resistance

The ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic represents an unprecedented global health crisis. Here, we report the identification of a synthetic nanobody (sybody) pair, Sb#15 and Sb#68, that can bind simultaneously to the SARS‐CoV‐2 spike RBD and efficiently neutralize pseudotyped and live viruses by interfering with ACE2 interaction. Cryo‐EM confirms that Sb#15 and Sb#68 engage two spatially discrete epitopes, influencing rational design of bispecific and tri‐bispecific fusion constructs that exhibit up to 100‐ and 1,000‐fold increase in neutralization potency, respectively. Cryo‐EM of the sybody‐spike complex additionally reveals a novel up‐out RBD conformation. While resistant viruses emerge rapidly in the presence of single binders, no escape variants are observed in the presence of the bispecific sybody. The multivalent bispecific constructs further increase the neutralization potency against globally circulating SARS‐CoV‐2 variants of concern. Our study illustrates the power of multivalency and biparatopic nanobody fusions for the potential development of therapeutic strategies that mitigate the emergence of new SARS‐CoV‐2 escape mutants.     

Scent of a killer: How could killer yeast boost its dispersal?

Vector‐borne parasites often manipulate hosts to attract uninfected vectors. For example, parasites causing malaria alter host odor to attract mosquitoes. Here, we discuss the ecology and evolution of fruit‐colonizing yeast in a tripartite symbiosis—the so‐called “killer yeast” system. “Killer yeast” consists of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast hosting two double‐stranded RNA viruses (M satellite dsRNAs, L‐A dsRNA helper virus). When both dsRNA viruses occur in a yeast cell, the yeast converts to lethal toxin‑producing “killer yeast” phenotype that kills uninfected yeasts. Yeasts on ephemeral fruits attract insect vectors to colonize new habitats. As the viruses have no extracellular stage, they depend on the same insect vectors as yeast for their dispersal. Viruses also benefit from yeast dispersal as this promotes yeast to reproduce sexually, which is how viruses can transmit to uninfected yeast strains. We tested whether insect vectors are more attracted to killer yeasts than to non‑killer yeasts. In our field experiment, we found that killer yeasts were more attractive to Drosophila than non‐killer yeasts. This suggests that vectors foraging on yeast are more likely to transmit yeast with a killer phenotype, allowing the viruses to colonize those uninfected yeast strains that engage in sexual reproduction with the killer yeast. Beyond insights into the basic ecology of the killer yeast system, our results suggest that viruses could increase transmission success by manipulating the insect vectors of their host.     

TMPRSS2 expression dictates the entry route used by SARS‐CoV‐2 to infect host cells

SARS‐CoV‐2 is a newly emerged coronavirus that caused the global COVID‐19 outbreak in early 2020. COVID‐19 is primarily associated with lung injury, but many other clinical symptoms such as loss of smell and taste demonstrated broad tissue tropism of the virus. Early SARS‐CoV‐2–host cell interactions and entry mechanisms remain poorly understood. Investigating SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in tissue culture, we found that the protease TMPRSS2 determines the entry pathway used by the virus. In the presence of TMPRSS2, the proteolytic process of SARS‐CoV‐2 was completed at the plasma membrane, and the virus rapidly entered the cells within 10 min in a pH‐independent manner. When target cells lacked TMPRSS2 expression, the virus was endocytosed and sorted into endolysosomes, from which SARS‐CoV‐2 entered the cytosol via acid‐activated cathepsin L protease 40–60 min post‐infection. Overexpression of TMPRSS2 in non‐TMPRSS2 expressing cells abolished the dependence of infection on the cathepsin L pathway and restored sensitivity to the TMPRSS2 inhibitors. Together, our results indicate that SARS‐CoV‐2 infects cells through distinct, mutually exclusive entry routes and highlight the importance of TMPRSS2 for SARS‐CoV‐2 sorting into either pathway.     

SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleocapsid suppresses host pyroptosis by blocking Gasdermin D cleavage

SARS‐CoV‐2 is an emerging coronavirus that causes dysfunctions in multiple human cells and tissues. Studies have looked at the entry of SARS‐CoV‐2 into host cells mediated by the viral spike protein and human receptor ACE2. However, less is known about the cellular immune responses triggered by SARS‐CoV‐2 viral proteins. Here, we show that the nucleocapsid of SARS‐CoV‐2 inhibits host pyroptosis by blocking Gasdermin D (GSDMD) cleavage. SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected monocytes show enhanced cellular interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β) expression, but reduced IL‐1β secretion. While SARS‐CoV‐2 infection promotes activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome and caspase‐1, GSDMD cleavage and pyroptosis are inhibited in infected human monocytes. SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleocapsid protein associates with GSDMD in cells and inhibits GSDMD cleavage in vitro and in vivo. The nucleocapsid binds the GSDMD linker region and hinders GSDMD processing by caspase‐1. These insights into how SARS‐CoV‐2 antagonizes cellular inflammatory responses may open new avenues for treating COVID‐19 in the future.     

The atomic portrait of SARS‐CoV‐2 as captured by cryo‐electron microscopy

Transmission electron microscopy has historically been indispensable for virology research, as it offers unique insight into virus function. In the past decade, as cryo‐electron microscopy (cryo‐EM) has matured and become more accessible, we have been able to peer into the structure of viruses at the atomic level and understand how they interact with the host cell, with drugs or with antibodies. Perhaps, there was no time in recent history where cryo‐EM was more needed, as SARS‐CoV‐2 has spread around the globe, causing millions of deaths and almost unquantifiable economic devastation. In this concise review, we aim to mark the most important contributions of cryo‐EM to understanding the structure and function of SARS‐CoV‐2 proteins, from surface spikes to the virus core and from virus‐receptor interactions to antibody binding.     

CTD of SARS‐CoV‐2 N protein is a cryptic domain for binding ATP and nucleic acid that interplay in modulating phase separation

SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleocapsid (N) protein plays essential roles in many steps of the viral life cycle, thus representing a key drug target. N protein contains the folded N‐/C‐terminal domains (NTD/CTD) and three intrinsically disordered regions, while its functions including liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS) depend on the capacity in binding various viral/host‐cell RNA/DNA of diverse sequences. Previously NTD was established to bind various RNA/DNA while CTD to dimerize/oligomerize for forming high‐order structures. By NMR, here for the first time we decrypt that CTD is not only capable of binding S2m, a specific probe derived from SARS‐CoV‐2 gRNA but with the affinity even higher than that of NTD. Very unexpectedly, ATP, the universal energy currency for all living cells with high cellular concentrations (2–16 mM), specifically binds CTD with Kd of 1.49 ± 0.28 mM. Strikingly, the ATP‐binding residues of NTD/CTD are identical in the SARS‐CoV‐2 variants while ATP and S2m interplay in binding NTD/CTD, as well as in modulating LLPS critical for the viral life cycle. Results together not only define CTD as a novel binding domain for ATP and nucleic acid, but enforce our previous proposal that ATP has been evolutionarily exploited by SARS‐CoV‐2 to complete its life cycle in the host cell. Most importantly, the unique ATP‐binding pockets on NTD/CTD may offer promising targets for design of specific anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 molecules to fight the pandemic. Fundamentally, ATP emerges to act at mM as a cellular factor to control the interface between the host cell and virus lacking the ability to generate ATP.     

Vaccines beyond antibodies: Spurred by pandemic research,are T‐cell vaccines moving closer to reality?

Lessons learned from the vaccines against SARS‐CoV‐2 has encouraged research and vaccine development aimed at mustering strong T cell responses against the pathogen. Subject Categories: Microbiology, Virology & Host Pathogen Interaction, Pharmacology & Drug Discovery

The new vaccines against SARS‐CoV‐2 elicited strong antibody responses in initial trials, which encouraged optimism amongst immunologists and public health experts who expected good efficacy. “With viral infections, it is almost unheard of to have a prophylactic vaccine that doesn’t work ultimately by generating neutralising antibody responses”, explained immunologist Kingston Mills at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland. However, the antibody response is not the whole story. “Efforts to explain how immunity is working against viruses to the general public has forced everyone to try to make things so simple that now what is left is a ridiculous oversimplified picture of the vertebrate immune system”, commented Antonio Bertoletti, infectious disease scientist at Duke‐National University of Singapore. In fact, there is increasing research focus on the role of T cells in mediating the cellular response to infections and how to stimulate these cells through vaccines.Antibodies work by recognising and attaching to surface structures of a virus or bacterium, which prevents the pathogen from infecting its target cells and mark it for destruction by other immune cells. However, pathogens can escape the antibody response via mutations that decrease the efficiency of antibodies from infection or vaccination. “You will still potentially get infected if you’re vaccinated, because the antibody response is not as strong as it was”, explained immunologist Luke O’Neill at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. “But then the T cells will kick in and stop the virus when it is inside cells”. Simply put, antibodies tend to prevent infection, while T cells combat infection and illness. Specifically, CD4 helper T cells primarily encourage B cells to generate antibodies whereas CD8 “killer” T cells eliminate cancerous and virally infected cells.     

Infection and transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 depend on heparan sulfate proteoglycans

The current pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and outbreaks of new variants highlight the need for preventive treatments. Here, we identified heparan sulfate proteoglycans as attachment receptors for SARS‐CoV‐2. Notably, neutralizing antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2 isolated from COVID‐19 patients interfered with SARS‐CoV‐2 binding to heparan sulfate proteoglycans, which might be an additional mechanism of antibodies to neutralize infection. SARS‐CoV‐2 binding to and infection of epithelial cells was blocked by low molecular weight heparins (LMWH). Although dendritic cells (DCs) and mucosal Langerhans cells (LCs) were not infected by SARS‐CoV‐2, both DC subsets efficiently captured SARS‐CoV‐2 via heparan sulfate proteoglycans and transmitted the virus to ACE2‐positive cells. Notably, human primary nasal cells were infected by SARS‐CoV‐2, and infection was blocked by pre‐treatment with LMWH. These data strongly suggest that heparan sulfate proteoglycans are important attachment receptors facilitating infection and transmission, and support the use of LMWH as prophylaxis against SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.     

Genome‐scale metabolic modeling reveals SARS‐CoV‐2‐induced metabolic changes and antiviral targets

Tremendous progress has been made to control the COVID‐19 pandemic caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. However, effective therapeutic options are still rare. Drug repurposing and combination represent practical strategies to address this urgent unmet medical need. Viruses, including coronaviruses, are known to hijack host metabolism to facilitate viral proliferation, making targeting host metabolism a promising antiviral approach. Here, we describe an integrated analysis of 12 published in vitro and human patient gene expression datasets on SARS‐CoV‐2 infection using genome‐scale metabolic modeling (GEM), revealing complicated host metabolism reprogramming during SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We next applied the GEM‐based metabolic transformation algorithm to predict anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 targets that counteract the virus‐induced metabolic changes. We successfully validated these targets using published drug and genetic screen data and by performing an siRNA assay in Caco‐2 cells. Further generating and analyzing RNA‐sequencing data of remdesivir‐treated Vero E6 cell samples, we predicted metabolic targets acting in combination with remdesivir, an approved anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 drug. Our study provides clinical data‐supported candidate anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 targets for future evaluation, demonstrating host metabolism targeting as a promising antiviral strategy.