Fig 2: Differences in circulating GDF15 (A) and ACE2 levels (B) by sex in COVID-19 patients and the uninfected control group. No differences were found by sex in GDF15 and ACE levels. The box plots represent the maximum and minimum levels (whiskers), the upper and lower quartiles, and the median. The length of each box represents the interquartile range. Dots represent outliers. Statistical significance between groups was determined using the ANOVA test.

Fig 3: Infection-promoting ACE2 SNPs are a risk factor for COVID19 susceptibility. (A) Heatmap showing the distribution of ACE2 variants in the hospitalization severity groups. Coloured squares indicate de presence of the ACE2 variants. Red: Promoting; Green: Protective; Yellow: No-effect. (B) Frequencies of ACE2 SNPs among hospitalization severity groups. Bars represent frequencies of the SNP in each group (C) Frequencies of ACE2 SNPS among susceptibility groups.

Fig 4: Serum ACE2 levels and severity. (A) ACE2 serum levels determined by ELISA in the indicated patients groups (B) The fraction of samples with low ACE2 (ACE2<7.3, lowest 25% of all samples), ***p<0.0001. (C) The fraction of samples with high ACE2 (ACE2>12.3, highest 25% of all samples).

Fig 5: Preserved neutralizing effect in 3N39v2 against globally spreading SARS-CoV-2 variants.a ACE2-Fcs and monoclonal antibody, REGN1093346 neutralized pseudotyped variants recently emerged in the United Kingdom (B.1.1.7), South Africa (B.1.351), and Brazil (P.1) in 293T/ACE2 cells. n = 4 technical replicates. b Neutralization potency of 3N39v2-Fc and monoclonal antibody, REGN10933 against UK-B.1.1.7 and BR-P.1 was analyzed in Vero6E/TMPRSS2 cells. Data are mean ± SEM of n = 3 technical replicates.