4.6 Article

Hepatitis B Virus Requires Intact Caveolin-1 Function for Productive Infection in HepaRG Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 84, 期 1, 页码 243-253

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01207-09

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Romanian National Council for Research and Higher Education (CNCSIS)
  2. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Investigation of the entry pathways of hepatitis B virus (HBV), a member of the family Hepadnaviridae, has been hampered by the lack of versatile in vitro infectivity models. Most concepts of hepadnaviral infection come from the more robust duck HBV system; however, whether the two viruses use the same mechanisms to invade target cells is still a matter of controversy. In this study, we investigate the role of an important plasma membrane component, caveolin-1 (Cav-1), in HBV infection. Caveolins are the main structural components of caveolae, plasma membrane microdomains enriched in cholesterol and sphingolipids, which are involved in the endocytosis of numerous ligands and complex signaling pathways within the cell. We used the HepaRG cell line permissive for HBV infection to stably express dominant-negative Cav-1 and dynamin-2, a GTPase involved in vesicle formation at the plasma membrane and other organelles. The endocytic properties of the newly established cell lines, designated HepaRG(Cav-1), HepaRG(Cav-1 Delta 1-81), HepaRG(Dyn-2), and HepaRG(Dyn-2K44A), were validated using specific markers for different entry routes. The cells maintained their properties during cell culture, supported differentiation, and were permissive for HBV infection. The levels of both HBV transcripts and antigens were significantly decreased in cells expressing the mutant proteins, while viral replication was not directly affected. Chemical inhibitors that specifically inhibit clathrin-mediated endocytosis had no effect on HBV infection. We concluded that HBV requires a Cav-1-mediated entry pathway to initiate productive infection in HepaRG cells.

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