4.4 Article

Wolbachia restricts insect-specific flavivirus infection in Aedes aegypti cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF GENERAL VIROLOGY
Volume 97, Issue -, Pages 3024-3029

Publisher

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/jgv.0.000617

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBSRC BB/J013854/1]
  2. MRC [MC_UU_12014]
  3. MRC [MC_UU_12014/8, MC_UU_12014/12, G0801822, MC_UP_A550_1031, MC_UU_12014/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [1512132] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_UU_12014/8, MC_UP_A550_1031, MC_UU_12014/12, MC_UU_12014/1, G0801822] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mosquito-borne viruses are known to cause disease in humans and livestock and are often difficult to control due to the lack of specific antivirals and vaccines. The Wolbachia endosymbiont has been widely studied for its ability to restrict positive-strand RNA virus infection in mosquitoes, although little is known about the precise antiviral mechanism. In recent years, a variety of insect-specific viruses have been discovered in mosquitoes and an interaction with mosquito-borne viruses has been reported for some of them; however, nothing is known about the effect of Wolbachia on insect-specific virus infection in mosquitoes. Here, we show that transinfection of the Drosophila-derived wMelPop Wolbachia strain into Aedes aegypti-derived cells resulted in inhibition and even clearance of the persistent cell-fusing agent flavivirus infection in these cells. This broadens the antiviral activity of Wolbachia from acute infections to persistent infections and from arboviruses to mosquito-specific viruses. In contrast, no effect on the Phasi Charoen-like bunyavirus persistent infection in these cells was observed, suggesting a difference in Wolbachia inhibition between positive-and negative-strand RNA viruses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available