4.8 Article

Size-dependent inhibition of herpesvirus cellular entry by polyvalent nanoarchitectures

期刊

NANOSCALE
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 3774-3783

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7nr00611j

关键词

-

资金

  1. collaborative research center of the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft [SFB 765]
  2. Cluster of Excellence Image Knowledge Gestaltung
  3. DFG [AZ 97/3-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon-based architectures, especially graphene and its derivatives, have recently attracted much attention in the field of biomedicine and biotechnology for their use as pathogen inhibitors or biosensors. One of the major problems in the development of novel virus inhibitor systems is the adaption of the inhibitor to the size of virus particles. We here report the synthesis and biological testing of carbon-based inhibitors differing in size for evaluating the potential size effect on the inhibition of virus entry and replication. In this context, different sized nanomaterials were functionalized with polygylcerol through a grafting from polymerization to form new polyvalent nanoarchitectures which can operate as viral inhibitor systems after post-modification. For this purpose a polysulfation was carried out to mimic the heparan sulfates present on cell surfaces that we reasoned would compete with the binding sites of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and equine herpesvirus type 1 (EHV-1), which both cause major global health issues. Our results clearly demonstrate that the inhibitory efficiency is regulated by the size of the polymeric nanomaterials and the degree of sulfation. The best inhibiting graphene sheets were similar to 300 nm in size and had a degree of sulfation of similar to 10%. Furthermore, it turned out that the derivatives inhibited virus infection at an early stage during entry but did not affect cell-to-cell spread. Overall, tunable polyvalent nanomaterials are promising and efficient virus entry inhibitors, which can likely be used for a broad spectrum of enveloped 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

4.8
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