4.6 Article

Viral Entry of Hepatitis B and D Viruses and Bile Salts Transportation Share Common Molecular Determinants on Sodium Taurocholate Cotransporting Polypeptide

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 88, 期 6, 页码 3273-3284

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.03478-13

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Merck Sharp & Dohme (MDS) RD China
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, China [2010CB530101, 2011CB812501]
  3. National Science and Technology Major Project, China [2013ZX09509102]
  4. Science and Technology Bureau of the Beijing Municipal Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The liver bile acids transporter sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide (NTCP) is responsible for the majority of sodium-dependent bile salts uptake by hepatocytes. NTCP also functions as a cellular receptor for viral entry of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis D virus (HDV) through a specific interaction between NTCP and the pre-S1 domain of HBV large envelope protein. However, it remains unknown if these two functions of NTCP are independent or if they interfere with each other. Here we show that binding of the pre-S1 domain to human NTCP blocks taurocholate uptake by the receptor; conversely, some bile acid substrates of NTCP inhibit HBV and HDV entry. Mutations of NTCP residues critical for bile salts binding severely impair viral infection by HDV and HBV; to a lesser extent, the residues important for sodium binding also inhibit viral infection. The mutation S267F, corresponding to a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) found in about 9% of the East Asian population, renders NTCP without either taurocholate transporting activity or the ability to support HBV or HDV infection in cell culture. These results demonstrate that molecular determinants critical for HBV and HDV entry overlap with that for bile salts uptake by NTCP, indicating that viral infection may interfere with the normal function of NTCP, and bile acids and their derivatives hold the potential for further development into antiviral drugs.

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