4.6 Article

Mechanisms of Rhinovirus Neutralisation by Antibodies

Journal

VIRUSES-BASEL
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v13030360

Keywords

rhinovirus; antibodies; neutralisation; vaccine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research has identified at least five mechanisms of antibody neutralisation against rhinoviruses, with the most studied mechanisms including virion aggregation, inhibition of attachment to cells, and stabilisation or destabilisation of the capsid structure. Newer mechanisms, such as degradation inside the cell through cytoplasmic antibody detection or outside by phagocytosis, depend on what might have been previously considered as non-neutralising antibodies. These various approaches of antibody interference of rhinoviruses could potentially influence vaccine design.
Antibodies are a critical immune correlate of protection for rhinoviruses, particularly those antibodies found in the secretory compartment. For nonenveloped viruses such as rhinoviruses, antibody binding to regions of the icosahedral capsid can neutralise infections by a number of different mechanisms. The purpose of this review is to address the neutralising mechanisms of antibodies to rhinoviruses that would help progress vaccine development. At least five mechanisms of antibody neutralisation have been identified which depend to some extent on the antibody binding footprints upon the capsid. The most studied mechanisms are virion aggregation, inhibition of attachment to cells, and stabilisation or destabilisation of the capsid structure. Newer mechanisms of degradation inside the cell through cytoplasmic antibody detection or outside by phagocytosis rely on what might have been previously considered as non-neutralising antibodies. We discuss these various approaches of antibody interference of rhinoviruses and offer suggestions as to how these could influence vaccine design.

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