4.6 Article

The First Transmembrane Domain of the Hepatitis B Virus Large Envelope Protein Is Crucial for Infectivity

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 83, 期 22, 页码 11819-11829

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01026-09

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. INSERM (Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale)
  2. ARC (Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer)
  3. ANRS ( Agence Nationale de Recherche contre le Sida et les hepatites virales)
  4. Ministere de l'Education Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie
  5. Region Bretagne

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The early steps of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) life cycle are still poorly understood. Indeed, neither the virus receptor at the cell surface nor the mechanism by which nucleocapsids are delivered to the cytosol of infected cells has been identified. Extensive mutagenesis studies in pre-S1, pre-S2, and most of the S domain of envelope proteins revealed the presence of two regions essential for HBV infectivity: the 77 first residues of the pre-S1 domain and a conformational motif in the antigenic loop of the S domain. In addition, at the N-terminal extremity of the S domain, a putative fusion peptide, partially overlapping the first transmembrane (TM1) domain and preceded by a PEST sequence likely containing several proteolytic cleavage sites, was identified. Since no mutational analysis of these two motifs potentially implicated in the fusion process was performed, we decided to investigate the ability of viruses bearing contiguous deletions or substitutions in the putative fusion peptide and PEST sequence to infect HepaRG cells. By introducing the mutations either in the L and M proteins or in the S protein, we demonstrated the following: (i) that in the TM1 domain of the L protein, three hydrophobic clusters of four residues were necessary for infectivity; (ii) that the same clusters were critical for S protein expression; and, finally, (iii) that the PEST sequence was dispensable for both assembly and infection processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据