4.6 Article

Entry of Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus Type 1 Is Augmented by Heparin Sulfate Proteoglycans Bearing Short Heparin-Like Structures

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 86, 期 6, 页码 2959-2969

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.05783-11

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science
  2. Japan Health Sciences Foundation
  3. CREST
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23659250] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three molecules have been identified as the main cellular factors required for binding and entry of human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1): glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1), heparan sulfate (HS), and neuropilin 1 (NRP-1). However, the precise mechanism of HTLV-1 cell tropism has yet to be elucidated. Here, we examined the susceptibilities of various human cell lines to HTLV-1 by using vesicular stomatitis virus pseudotypes bearing HTLV-1 envelope proteins. We found that the cellular susceptibility to HTLV-1 infection did not correlate with the expression of GLUT1, HS, or NRP-1 alone. To investigate whether other cellular factors were responsible for HTLV-1 susceptibility, we conducted expression cloning. We identified two HS proteoglycan core proteins, syndecan 1 and syndecan 2, as molecules responsible for susceptibility to HTLV-1. We found that treatment of syndecan 1-transduced cells (expressing increased HS) with heparinase, a heparin-degradative enzyme, reduced HTLV-1 susceptibility without affecting the expression levels of HS chains. To further elucidate these results, we characterized the expression of HS chains in terms of the mass, number, and length of HS in several syndecan 1-transduced cell clones as well as human cell lines. We found a significant correlation between HTLV-1 susceptibility and the number of HS chains with short chain lengths. Our findings suggest that a combination of the number and the length of HS chains containing heparin-like regions is a critical factor which affects the cell tropism of HTLV-1.

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