4.6 Article

Differential type IIFN-Inducing abilities of wild-type versus vaccine strains of measles virus

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 179, Issue 9, Pages 6123-6133

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.9.6123

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laboratory adapted and vaccine strains of measles virus (MV) induced type I IFN in infected cells. The wild-type strains in contrast induced it to a far lesser extent. We have investigated the mechanism for this differential type I IFN induction in monocyte-derived dendritic cells infected with representative MV strains. Laboratory adapted strains Nagahata and Edmonston infected monocyte-derived dendritic cells and activated IRF-3 followed by IFN-,6 production, while wild-type MS failed to activate IRF-3. The viral IRF-3 activation is induced within 2 h, an early response occurring before protein synthesis. Receptor usage of CD46 or CD150 and nucleocapsid (N) protein variations barely affected the strain-to-strain difference in IFN-inducing abilities. Strikingly, most of the IFN-inducing strains possessed defective interference (DI) RNAs of varying sizes. In addition, an artificially produced DI RNA consisting of stem (the leader and trailer of MV) and loop (the GFP sequence) exhibited potential IFN-inducing ability. In this case, however, cytoplasmic introduction was needed for DI RNA to induce type I IFN in target cells. By genesilencing analysis, DI RNA activated the RIG-IIMDA5-mitochondria antiviral signaling pathway, but not the TLR3-TICAM-1 pathway. DI RNA-containing strains induced IFN-beta mRNA within 2 h while the same recombinant strains with no DI RNA required >12 h postinfection to attain similar levels of IFN-beta mRNA. Thus, the stem-loop structure, rather than full genome replication or specific internal sequences of the MV genome, is required for an early phase of type I IFN induction by MV in host cells.

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