4.6 Article

Appraising the Roles of CBLL1 and the Ubiquitin/Proteasome System for Flavivirus Entry and Replication

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 85, 期 6, 页码 2980-2989

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02483-10

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  2. Institut Universitaire d'Hematologie
  3. Institut National de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM)
  4. Marie Curie FP6 framework
  5. Marie Curie
  6. La Caixa fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ubiquitin ligase CBLL1 (also known as HAKAI) has been proposed to be a critical cellular factor exploited by West Nile virus (WNV) for productive infection. CBLL1 has emerged as a major hit in a recent RNA interference screen designed to identify cellular factors required for the early stages of the WNV life cycle. Follow-up experiments showed that HeLa cells knocked down for CBLL1 by a small interfering RNA (siRNA) failed to internalize WNV particles and resisted infection. Furthermore, depletion of a free-ubiquitin pool by the proteasome inhibitor MG132 abolished WNV endocytosis, suggesting that CBLL1 acts in concert with the ubiquitin proteasome system to mediate virus internalization. Here, we examined the effect of CBLL1 knockdown and proteasome inhibitors on infection by WNV and other flaviviruses. We identified new siRNAs that repress the CBLL1 protein and strongly inhibit the endocytosis of Listeria monocytogenes, a bacterial pathogen known to require CBLL1 to invade host cells. Strikingly, however, we detected efficient WNV, dengue virus, and yellow fever virus infection of human cells, despite potent downregulation of CBLL1 by RNA interference. In addition, we found that the proteasome inhibitors MG132 and lactacystin did not affect WNV internalization but strongly repressed flavivirus RNA translation and replication. Together, these data do not support a requirement for CBLL1 during flavivirus entry and rather suggest an essential role of the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway for flavivirus genome amplification.

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