4.6 Article

Structural Basis for the Recognition of Lewis Antigens by Genogroup I Norovirus

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
Volume 86, Issue 20, Pages 11138-11150

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00278-12

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. R&D Project of Industrial Science and Technology Frontier Program
  2. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Noroviruses (NoVs) bind to histo-blood group antigens, namely, ABH antigens and Lewis antigens. We previously showed the NoVs GI/2, GI/3, GI/4, and GI/8 were able to strongly bind to Lewis a (Le(a)) antigen, which is expressed by individuals who are nonsecretors. In this study, to investigate how Lewis antigens interact with GI NoV virion protein 1 (VP1), we determined the crystal structures of the P domain of the VP1 protein from the Funabashi 258 (FUV258) strain (GI/2) in complexes with Le(a), Le(b), H type 1, or A type 1 antigens. The structures were compared with those of the NV/68 strain (GI/1), which does not bind to the Le(a) antigen. The four loop structures, loop P, loop S, loop A, and loop B, continuously deviated by more than 2 angstrom in length between the C alpha atoms of the corresponding residues of the FUV258 and NV/68 P domains. The most pronounced differences between the two VP1 proteins were observed in the structures of loop P. In the FUV258 P domain, loop P protruded toward the next protomer, forming a Le(a) antigen-binding site. The Gln389 residue make a significant contribution to the binding of the Le(a) antigen through the stabilization of loop P as well as through direct interactions with the alpha 4-fucosyl residue (alpha 4Fuc) of the Le(a) antigen. Mutation of the Gln389 residue dramatically affected the degree of binding of the Lewis antigens. Collectively, these results suggest that loop P and the amino acid residue at position 389 affect Lewis antigen binding.

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