Recent experience with the COVID-19 pandemic should be a lesson learnt with respect to the effort we have to invest in the development of new strategies for the treatment of viral diseases, along with their cheap, easy, sensitive, and selective detection. Since we live in a globalized world where just hours can play a crucial role in the spread of a virus, its detection must be as quick as possible. Thanks to their chemical stability, photostability, and superior biocompatibility, carbon dots are a kind of nanomaterial showing great potential in both the detection of various virus strains and a broad-spectrum antiviral therapy. The biosensing and antiviral properties of carbon dots can be tuned by the selection of synthesis precursors as well as by easy post-synthetic functionalization. In this review, we will first summarize current options of virus detection utilizing carbon dots by either electrochemical or optical biosensing approaches. Secondly, we will cover and share the up-to-date knowledge of carbon dots’ antiviral properties, which showed promising activity against various types of viruses including SARS-CoV-2. The mechanisms of their antiviral actions will be further adressed as well. Finally, we will discuss the advantages and distadvantages of the use of carbon dots in the tangled battle against viral infections in order to provide valuable informations for further research and development of new virus biosensors and antiviral therapeutics. Graphical abstract

Although Ddi1-like proteins are conserved among eukaryotes, their biological functions remain poorly characterized. Yeast Ddi1 has been implicated in cell cycle regulation, DNA-damage response and exocytosis. By virtue of its ubiquitin-like (UBL) and ubiquitin-associated (UBA) domains, it has been proposed to serve as a proteasomal shuttle factor. All Ddi1-like family members also contain a highly conserved retroviral protease-like (RVP) domain with unknown substrate specificity. While the structure and biological function of yeast Ddi1 have been investigated, no such analysis is available for the human homologs. To address this, we solved the 3D structures of the human Ddi2 UBL and RVP domains and identified a new helical domain that extends on either side of the RVP dimer. While Ddi1-like proteins from all vertebrates lack a UBA domain, we identify a novel ubiquitin-interacting motif (UIM) located at the C-terminus of the protein. The UIM showed a weak yet specific affinity towards ubiquitin, as did the Ddi2 UBL domain. However, the full-length Ddi2 protein is unable to bind to di-ubiquitin chains. While proteomic analysis revealed no activity, implying that the protease requires other factors for activation, our structural characterization of all domains of human Ddi2 sets the stage for further characterization.

This study presents a toxicological evaluation of two types of carbon dots (CD), similar in size (<10 nm) but differing in surface charge. Whole-genome mRNA and miRNA expression (RNAseq), as well as gene-specific DNA methylation changes, were analyzed in human embryonic lung fibroblasts (HEL 12469) after 4 h and 24 h exposure to concentrations of 10 and 50 µg/mL (for positive charged CD; pCD) or 10 and 100 µg/mL (for negative charged CD, nCD). The results showed a distinct response for the tested nanomaterials (NMs). The exposure to pCD induced the expression of a substantially lower number of mRNAs than those to nCD, with few commonly differentially expressed genes between the two CDs. For both CDs, the number of deregulated mRNAs increased with the dose and exposure time. The pathway analysis revealed a deregulation of processes associated with immune response, tumorigenesis and cell cycle regulation, after exposure to pCD. For nCD treatment, pathways relating to cell proliferation, apoptosis, oxidative stress, gene expression, and cycle regulation were detected. The expression of miRNAs followed a similar pattern: more pronounced changes after nCD exposure and few commonly differentially expressed miRNAs between the two CDs. For both CDs the pathway analysis based on miRNA-mRNA interactions, showed a deregulation of cancer-related pathways, immune processes and processes involved in extracellular matrix interactions. DNA methylation was not affected by exposure to any of the two CDs. In summary, although the tested CDs induced distinct responses on the level of mRNA and miRNA expression, pathway analyses revealed a potential common biological impact of both NMs independent of their surface charge.

A series of eight N‐heterocyclic carbenes (NHC) gold(I) complexes, involving 1,3‐bis(2,6‐diisopropylphenyl)imidazol‐2‐ylidene (iPr) ligand in combination with 6‐mercaptopurine derivatives (HL_1–8), has been prepared and thoroughly characterized, including elemental analysis, mass spectrometry, infrared and multinuclear NMR spectroscopy, and single crystal X‐ray analysis. The complexes, showing general composition of [Au (iPr)(L_n)] 1–8, were evaluated for their in vitro cytotoxicity against four human cancer cell lines including A2780 (ovarian) and A2780R (ovarian Cisplatin resistant), PC3 (prostate) and MCF‐7 (breast), and normal human MRC‐5 cells (lung fibroblasts). The complexes revealed significant cytotoxicity, with the best IC₅₀ values ≈ 3.4–6.4 μM against A2780 and reasonable selectivity. Cellular effects of the selected complexes on the A2780 cells were evaluated using various flow cytometry assays. Complexes 1, 3, and 4 showed a strong pro‐apoptotic effect and a strong effect on the loss of mitochondrial membrane potential. These findings indicate that their major mechanism of action is based on the collapse of the mitochondrial metabolism and activation of the intrinsic signaling pathway of apoptosis, consequently resulting in cell death. The complexes 1–8 revealed only negligible effect on the production of inflammatory‐related cytokine (TNF‐α), as well as the activation of nuclear factor kappa‐light‐chain‐enhancer of activated B cells (NF‐κB) or peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor gamma (PPARγ). Moreover, the shotgun proteomic analysis was performed, and the obtained results suggest that the mechanism of action of complexes 1, 3, and 4 differs somewhat from that of Auranofin.