4.6 Article

Different mechanisms of cell entry by human-pathogenic old world and New World arenaviruses

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 82, 期 15, 页码 7677-7687

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00560-08

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R21 AI065560, U54 AI065359, R01 AI055540, 1U54 AI065359, R21 AI055540, AI55540, AI065560] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Old World arenavirus Lassa virus (LASV) is the causative agent of severe viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF) in humans and is the most prevalent human pathogen among arenaviruses. The present study investigated the largely unknown mechanisms of cell entry of LASV, a process know to be mediated solely by the virus envelope glycoprotein (GP). To circumvent biosafety restrictions associated with the use of live LASV, we used reverse genetics to generate a recombinant variant of the prototypic arenavirus lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) expressing the LASV GP (rLCMV-LASVGP). The rescued rLCMV-LASVGP grew to titers comparable to that of LCMV and showed the receptor binding characteristics of LASV. We used rLCMV-LASVGP to characterize the cellular mechanisms of LASV entry in the context of a productive arenavirus infection. The kinetics of pH-dependent membrane fusion of rLCMV-LASVGP resembled those of the human-pathogenic New World arenavirus Junin virus (JUNV) and other enveloped viruses that use clathrin-mediated endocytosis for entry. However, rLCMV-LASVGP entered cells predominantly via a clathrin-, caveolin-, and dynamin-independent endocytotic pathway similar to the one recently described for LCMV. Productive infection of rLCMV-LASVGP was only mildly affected by a dominant negative mutant of Rab5 and was independent of Rab7, suggesting an unusual mechanism of delivery to endosomes. In addition, rLCMV-LASVGP infection was independent of actin but required intact microtubulles. Our data indicate that LASV enters cells via a pathway distinct from the one used by human-pathogenic New World arenaviruses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据