4.6 Article

Cell-type-specific repression of internal ribosome entry site activity by double-stranded RNA-binding protein 76

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
Volume 80, Issue 7, Pages 3147-3156

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.80.7.3147-3156.2006

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA087537, R55 CA087537, CA87537] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Translation of picornavirus plus-strand RNA genomes occurs via internal ribosomal entry at highly structured 5' untranslated regions. In addition to canonical translation factors, translation rate is likely influenced by supplementary host and viral trans-acting factors. We previously reported that insertion of a heterologous human rhinovirus type 2 internal ribosomal entry site (IRES) into the poliovirus (PV) genome, generating the chimeric virus PV-RIPO, selectively abrogates viral translation and propagation in neurons, which eliminate poliovirus's signature neuropathogenicity. While severely deficient in cells of neuronal lineage, the rhinovirus IRES promotes efficient propagation of PV-RIPO in cancer cells. Tumor-specific IRES function can be therapeutically exploited to direct viral cytotoxicity to cancer cells. Neuron-glioma heterokaryon analysis implicates neuronal trans-dominant inhibition in this effect, suggesting that host trans-acting factors repress IRES function in a cell-type-specific manner. We identified a set of proteins from neuronal cells with affinity. P for the rhinovirus IRES, including double-stranded RNA-binding protein 76 (DRBP76). DRBP76 associates with the IRES in neuronal but not in malignant glioma cells. Moreover, DRBP76 depletion in neuronal cells enhances rhinovirus IRES-driven translation and virus propagation. Our observations suggest that cell-type-specific association of DRBP76 with the rhinovirus IRES represses PV-RIPO translation and propagation in neuronal 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