4.2 Article

Comparative analysis of selected innate immune-related genes following infection of immortal DF-1 cells with highly pathogenic (H5N1) and low pathogenic (H9N2) avian influenza viruses

期刊

VIRUS GENES
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 189-199

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11262-014-1151-z

关键词

H5N1; H9N2; Innate immune-related genes; Real-time quantitative PCR; Subtype-dependent host response

资金

  1. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China - Shandong Modern Agricultural Technology & Industry System [2014DFA31900, SDAIT-13-011-01]
  2. Special fund for Agro-scientific research in the public interest [201303046-06]
  3. Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences [2014CXZ08]
  4. Taishan Scholar Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

H5N1 and H9N2 viruses are important causes of avian influenza in China. H5N1 is typically associated with severe to fatal disease in poultry, while H9N2 is usually associated with mild disease. Differences in viral virulence prompted us to investigate whether innate immune responses would be differentially regulated following infection by H5N1 and H9N2 viruses. To address this hypothesis, expression of a panel of innate immune-related genes including IFN-alpha, IFN-beta, Mx1, OASL, ISG12, IFIT5, IRF7, USP18, SST, and KHSRP in immortal DF-1 cells following H5N1 and H9N2 infection was analyzed and compared by real-time quantitative RT-PCR. Cells infected by either virus overall exhibited a similar expression profile for four ISGs (Mx1, OASL, ISG12, and IFIT5), IFN-alpha, IFN-beta, and SST gene. However, two immune-regulatory genes (IRF7 and KHSRP) were not responsive to highly pathogenic H5N1 infection but were strongly up-regulated in DF-1 cells infected with low pathogenic H9N2 infection. The subtype-dependent host response observed in this study offers new insights into the potential roles of IRF7 and KHSRP in control and modulation of the replication and virulence of different subtypes or strains of avian influenza A virus.

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

4.2
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