4.6 Article

Coevolution of RANTES sensitivity and mode of CCR5 receptor use by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 of the R5 phenotype

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 21, Pages 11807-11815

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.78.21.11807-11815.2004

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The evolution of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) coreceptor use has been described as the acquisition of CXCR4 use linked to accelerated disease progression. However, CXCR4-using virus can be isolated only from approximately one-half of individuals with progressive HIV-1 disease. The other half continue to yield only CCR5-using viruses (R5 phenotype) throughout the course of disease. In the present work, the use of receptor chimeras between CCR5 and CXCR4 allowed us to study the evolution of HIV-1 with the R5 phenotype, which was not revealed by studies of wild-type coreceptor use. All together, 246 isolates (173 with the R5 phenotype) from 31 individuals were tested for their ability to infect cells through receptor chimeras. R5(narrow) virus was able to use only wild-type CCR5, whereas R5(broad(1)) to R5(broad(3)) viruses were able to use one to three chimeric receptors, respectively. Broad use of chimeric receptors was interpreted as an increased flexibility in the mode of receptor use. R5 broad isolates showed higher infectivity in cells expressing wild-type CCR5 than R5(narrow) isolates. Also, the increased flexibility of R5(broad) isolates was concomitant with a lower sensitivity to inhibition by the CC chemokine RANTES. Our results indicate a close relationship between HIV-1 phenotypic changes and the pathogenic process, since the mode and efficiency of CCR5 use as well as the decrease in the RANTES sensitivities of isolated viruses are significantly correlated with CD4(+)-T-cell decline in a patient. One possible explanation is that ligand competition at the CCR5 receptor or changed CCR5 availability may shape the outcome of HIV-1 infection.

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