4.6 Article

Processing of Genome 5′ Termini as a Strategy of Negative-Strand RNA Viruses to Avoid RIG-I-Dependent Interferon Induction

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002032

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  2. Swedish Medicine Council [K2007-56X-20349-01-3]
  3. Swedish Society for Medical Research
  4. [We 2616/5-1]
  5. [SFB 535]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Innate immunity is critically dependent on the rapid production of interferon in response to intruding viruses. The intracellular pathogen recognition receptors RIG-I and MDA5 are essential for interferon induction by viral RNAs containing 59 triphosphates or double-stranded structures, respectively. Viruses with a negative-stranded RNA genome are an important group of pathogens causing emerging and re-emerging diseases. We investigated the ability of genomic RNAs from substantial representatives of this virus group to induce interferon via RIG-I or MDA5. RNAs isolated from particles of Ebola virus, Nipah virus, Lassa virus, and Rift Valley fever virus strongly activated the interferon-beta promoter. Knockdown experiments demonstrated that interferon induction depended on RIG-I, but not MDA5, and phosphatase treatment revealed a requirement for the RNA 59 triphosphate group. In contrast, genomic RNAs of Hantaan virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus and Borna disease virus did not trigger interferon induction. Sensitivity of these RNAs to a 59 monophosphate-specific exonuclease indicates that the RIG-I-activating 59 triphosphate group was removed posttranscriptionally by a viral function. Consequently, RIG-I is unable to bind the RNAs of Hantaan virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus and Borna disease virus. These results establish RIG-I as a major intracellular recognition receptor for the genome of most negative-strand RNA viruses and define the cleavage of triphosphates at the RNA 59 end as a strategy of viruses to evade the innate 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