4.6 Article

Incorporation of tick-borne encephalitis virus replicons into virus-like particles by a packaging cell line

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
Volume 77, Issue 16, Pages 8924-8933

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.77.16.8924-8933.2003

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

RNA replicons derived from flavivirus genomes show considerable potential as gene transfer and immunization vectors. A convenient and efficient encapsidation system is an important prerequisite for the practical application of such vectors. In this work, tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) virus replicons and an appropriate packaging cell line were constructed and characterized. A stable CHO cell line constitutively expressing the two surface proteins prM/M and E (named CHO-ME cells) was generated and shown to efficiently export mature recombinant subviral particles (RSPs). When replicon NdDeltaME lacking the prM/M and E genes was introduced into CHO-ME cells, virus-like particles (VLPs) capable of initiating a single round of infection were released, yielding titers of up to 5 x 10(7)/ml in the supernatant of these cells. Another replicon (NdDeltaCME) lacking the region encoding most of the capsid protein C in addition to proteins prM/M and E was not packaged by CHO-ME cells. As observed with other flavivirus replicons, both TBE virus replicons appeared to exert no cytopathic effect on their host cells. Sedimentation analysis revealed that the NdDeltaME-containing VLPs were physically distinct from RSPs and similar to infectious virions. VLPs could be repeatedly passaged in CHO-ME cells but maintained the property of being able to initiate only a single round of infection in other cells during these passages. CHO-ME cells can thus be used both as a source for mature TBE virus RSPs and as a safe and convenient replicon packaging cell line, providing the TBE virus surface proteins prM/M and E in trans.

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