4.7 Article

Budding of Tiger Frog Virus (an Iridovirus) from HepG2 Cells via Three Ways Recruits the ESCRT Pathway

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep26581

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31322056, 31370048, 31330080]
  2. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [S2013010012161, 2014TQ01N303]
  3. Pearl River S&T Nova Program of Guangzhou [2014J2200055]
  4. Foundation for Yong Teacher [20130171220009]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [151gzd04, 15lgjc05]
  6. National Key Technology RD program [2011BAD13B11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cellular endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) pathway is a multifunctional pathway involved in cell physiological activities. While the majority of RNA viruses bearing L-domains are known to hijack the ESCRT pathway to complete the budding process, the budding of large and complex enveloped DNA viruses, especially iridoviruses, has been rarely investigated. In the present study, we use the tiger frog virus (TFV) as a model to investigate whether iridoviruses are released from host cells through the ESCRT pathway. Inhibition of class E proteins and auxiliary proteins (VPS4A, VPS4B, Tsg101, Alix, and Nedd4.1) reduces extracellular virion production, which preliminarily indicates that the ESCRT pathway is involved in TFV release. The respective interactions of TFV VP031L, VP065L, VP093L with Alix, Tsg101, Nedd4 suggest the underlying molecular mechanism by which TFV gets access to the ESCRT pathway. Co-depletion of Alix, Tsg101, and Nedd4.1 induces a significant reduction in extracellular virion production, which implies the functional redundancy of host factors in TFV budding. Those results are first observation that iridovirus gains access to ESCRT pathway through three ways of interactions between viral proteins and host proteins. Our study provides a better understanding of the budding mechanism of enveloped DNA viruses.

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

4.7
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