4.6 Article

Neuraminidase Activity and Resistance of 2009 Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Virus to Antiviral Activity in Bronchoalveolar Fluid

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 9, Pages 4637-4646

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00013-16

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Thailand Research Fund (TRF) [RTA5780009]
  2. National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) [61047]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human bronchoalveolar fluid is known to have anti-influenza activity. It is believed to be a frontline innate defense against the virus. Several antiviral factors, including surfactant protein D, are believed to contribute to the activity. The 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza virus was previously shown to be less sensitive to surfactant protein D. Nevertheless, whether different influenza virus strains have different sensitivities to the overall anti-influenza activity of human bronchoalveolar fluid was not known. We compared the sensitivities of 2009 pandemic H1N1, seasonal H1N1, and seasonal H3N2 influenza virus strains to inhibition by human bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. The pandemic and seasonal H1N1 strains showed lower sensitivity to human BAL fluid than the H3N2 strains. The BAL fluid anti-influenza activity could be enhanced by oseltamivir, indicating that the viral neuraminidase (NA) activity could provide resistance to the antiviral defense. In accordance with this finding, the BAL fluid anti-influenza activity was found to be sensitive to sialidase. The oseltamivir resistance mutation H275Y rendered the pandemic H1N1 virus but not the seasonal H1N1 virus more sensitive to BAL fluid. Since only the seasonal H1N1 but not the pandemic H1N1 had compensatory mutations that allowed oseltamivir-resistant strains to maintain NA enzymatic activity and transmission fitness, the resistance to BAL fluid of the drug-resistant seasonal H1N1 virus might play a role in viral fitness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available