4.6 Article

The Pre-S1 and Antigenic Loop Infectivity Determinants of the Hepatitis B Virus Envelope Proteins Are Functionally Independent

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 83, 期 23, 页码 12443-12451

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01594-09

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hepatitis B virus (HBV) envelope proteins bear two determinants of viral entry: a receptor-binding site (RBS) in the pre-S1 domain of the large envelope protein and a conformation-dependent determinant, of unknown function, in the antigenic loop (AGL) of the small, middle, and large envelope proteins. Using an in vitro infection assay consisting of susceptible HepaRG cells and the hepatitis delta virus (HDV) as a surrogate of HBV, we first investigated whether subelements of the pre-S1 determinant (amino acids 2 to 75), i.e., the N-terminal myristoyl anchor, subdomain 2-48 (RBS), and subdomain 49-75, were functionally separable. In transcomplementation experiments, coexpression of two distinct infectivity-deficient pre-S1 mutants at the surface of HDV virions failed to restore infectivity, indicating that the myristoyl anchor, the 2-48 RBS, and the 49-75 sequence, likely cooperate in cis at viral entry. Furthermore, we showed that as much as 52% of total pre-S1 in the HDV envelope could bear infectivity-deficient lesions without affecting entry, indicating that a small number of pre-S1 polypeptides-estimated at three to four per virion-is sufficient for infectivity. We next investigated the AGL activity in the small or large envelope protein background (S- and L-AGL, respectively) and found that lesions in S- AGL were more deleterious to infectivity than in L-AGL, a difference that reflects the relative stoichiometry of the small and large envelope proteins in the viral envelope. Finally, we showed that C147S, an AGL infectivity-deficient substitution, exerted a dominant-negative effect on infectivity, likely reflecting an involvement of C147 in intermolecular disulfide bonds.

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