4.6 Article

A New Model of Epstein-Barr Virus Infection Reveals an Important Role for Early Lytic Viral Protein Expression in the Development of Lymphomas

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 165-177

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01512-10

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R21-CA12643, R01-CA58853, R01-CA66519]
  2. University of Wisconsin Cancer Center [P30 CA014520]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA066519, R01CA058853, P30CA014520] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R21AI076707] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infects cells in latent or lytic forms, but the role of lytic infection in EBV-induced lymphomas is unclear. Here, we have used a new humanized mouse model, in which both human fetal CD34(+) hematopoietic stem cells and thymus/liver tissue are transplanted, to compare EBV pathogenesis and lymphoma formation following infection with a lytic replication-defective BZLF1-deleted (Z-KO) virus or a lytically active BZLF1(+) control. Both the control and Z-KO viruses established long-term viral latency in all infected animals. The infection appeared well controlled in some animals, but others eventually developed CD20(+) diffuse large B cell lymphomas (DLBCL). Animals infected with the control virus developed tumors more frequently than Z-KO virus-infected animals. Specific immune responses against EBV-infected B cells were generated in mice infected with either the control virus or the Z-KO virus. In both cases, forms of viral latency (type I and type IIB) were observed that are less immunogenic than the highly transforming form (type III) commonly found in tumors of immunocompromised hosts, suggesting that immune pressure contributed to the outcome of the infection. These results point to an important role for lytic EBV infection in the development of B cell lymphomas in the context of an active host immune response.

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