Talk:Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2

message: Can anybody actually find that statement in reference 23?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.2.70 (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors results in an upregulation of ACE2,[23] 

message: The role of ACE2 in SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 is complicated.  The following about ACE in SARS (which should also apply equally to SARS-CoV-2) is clearest explanation I have been able to find:
* 
There are a number of things going on here:
* The normal function of ACE2 is to lower blood pressure by cleaving vasoconstricting angiotensin II to the vasodilating AT1–7 peptide.
* Coronavirus uses ACE2 as a cell surface receptor to gain entrance into the cell
* Binding of coronavirus to ACE2 down regulates the levels of ACE2 through internalization of ACE2 → angiotensin II↑ and AT1–7↓ → lung damage
* Both ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to upregulate ACE2 expression
* In terms of coronavirus infection, up regulation of ACE2 has potentially both bad and good effects:
** bad: more receptors for coronavirus entry into cells
** good: decrease angiotensin II and increase in AT1–7 which in turn protects lungs against damage
This has immediate implications for the continued use of blood pressure lower ACE inhibitors and ABRs in the environment of the coronavirus pandemic. The current recommendation is not to change standard prescribing practice. Boghog (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading reference 28, and the corresponding research article that it talks about (https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1267), I could not find any data or reference saying ACE inhibitor drugs increase the expression of ACE2 receptor. The claim that ACE2 is increased, increasing the susceptibility to the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus is misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.159.10 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   The above bullet point summary was not completely sourced. My apologizes. According to the HFSA/ACC/AHA Statement "In a few experimental studies with animal models, both angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to upregulate ACE2 expression in the heart".  I am not at all advocating it does or does not.  I am just trying to put in context why the HFSA/ACC/AHA was compelled to issue their statement in the first place. Boghog (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good ACE, bad ACE 

message: Dear many authors of this page (, , , ), I would like to please request, given the large number of page views that is received, that edits strive to make the content as understandable to the lay and non biomedically-trained reader as possible. This is the lead at the moment:
 This is not understandable to lay editors!! Here are some examples of some methods things can be changed:
* Used a piped link so a more common word can be used: eg. pulmonary --> lung alveolus 
* Use a more simple phrase so readers understand what you mean: "proteolytic cleavage" --> "cleavage of the protein"
* Use more words to separate concepts into separate clauses: "vasodilator angiotensin 1-7" --> "angiotentin 1-7, which acts as a vasodilator"
* See WP:ANATSIMPLIFY for more examples
Could editors please take readers into account when editing? It is possible to be both accurate and easy to read. Being "scientific" doesn't mean that it has to be incomprehensible; but the current state leaves the article only understandable to people with university level training, which is not ideal. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it a little, but you are welcome to continue. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plea for simplicity 

message: *
is a comparative study as opposed to a review article IMO. 
*
is a comment rather than a review article either.
*
is not supported by any reference. 
What the systematic review and meta-analysis for human says?
*
Taken together, I politely ask folks to review the statements quoted from the body of Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2 shown above. Thank you! 
--Reciprocater (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning both points, the key word is "may". To put the position statement in context, it is important to state why there may be a concern. Inserting the position statement without background makes no sense.  Concerning the first point, I have added   a review article based on mouse experiments (will put this in context shortly).  Concerning the second point, I have added .  Boghog (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, I attributed it to mice in the article to help distinguish. --Reciprocater (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

text: is a WP:MEDRS compliant review documents the possible role of ACE2 and lung damage. Boghog (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah there is a theoretical concern. But the concerns is not to such a degree that major medication organizations recommend these medications be stopped. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Totally Agree. Just trying to explain why the recommendation was issued in the first place. Boghog (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk of penumonia associated with ARBs and ACEs . 

message: Does Angiotensin II “AT-II” bind with ACE2 at a site similar to where the Covid spike protein binds?
If so, are there epitopes on AT-II that
are antigenically similar to epitopes on
the COVID spike protein?
Why might this matter?
Because if so, potentially could
*Antibodies* to the spike protein 
Cross React with AT-II, effectively 
Competing with ACE2 for AT-II 
(and potentially dysregulating  the
breakdown of AT-II with widespread 
downstream physiological/ pathological 
impact) ?
Any info on this?
Thanks.
G. Holt 2600:1002:B02F:522D:243F:79D8:86DA:7150 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there epitopes on AT-II which are sufficiently similar to epitopes on the covid19 spike protein that antibodies to the spike protein might Cross-React with AT-II? 

message: Please see previous question 2600:1002:B02F:522D:243F:79D8:86DA:7150 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Above should read “Cross React with AT-II (angiotensin 2)” (not AT-I ... pesky autocorrect!) 

message: Possible dysregulation of RAAS? 2600:1002:B02A:E229:A0E8:E61B:27BD:B365 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do anti-Spike antibodies cross react with Angiotensin II (AT-II) ? 

message: According to Oudit et al (2023): SARS-CoV-2’s viral tropism is dependent on ACE2 tissue distribution and expression. I am not sure if this fact is already included in the article, because it is too technical for me. If it is missing, I ask that we include it. Forich (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation with SARS-CoV-2’s viral tropism