4.6 Article

Viral Kinetics Suggests a Reconciliation of the Disparate Observations of the Modulation of Claudin-1 Expression on Cells Exposed to Hepatitis C Virus

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036107

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology Centre of Excellence for Research on Hepatitis C Virus, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tight junction protein claudin-1 (CLDN1) is necessary for hepatitis C virus (HCV) entry into target cells. Recent studies have made disparate observations of the modulation of the expression of CLDN1 on cells following infection by HCV. In one study, the mean CLDN1 expression on cells exposed to HCV declined, whereas in another study HCV infected cells showed increased CLDN1 expression compared to uninfected cells. Consequently, the role of HCV in modulating CLDN1 expression, and hence the frequency of cellular superinfection, remains unclear. Here, we present a possible reconciliation of these disparate observations. We hypothesized that viral kinetics and not necessarily HCV-induced receptor modulation underlies these disparate observations. To test this hypothesis, we constructed a mathematical model of viral kinetics in vitro that mimicked the above experiments. Model predictions provided good fits to the observed evolution of the distribution of CLDN1 expression on cells following exposure to HCV. Cells with higher CLDN1 expression were preferentially infected and outgrown by cells with lower CLDN1 expression, resulting in a decline of the mean CLDN1 expression with time. At the same time, because the susceptibility of cells to infection increased with CLDN1 expression, infected cells tended to have higher CLDN1 expression on average than uninfected cells. Our study thus presents an explanation of the disparate observations of CLDN1 expression following HCV infection and points to the importance of considering viral kinetics in future studies of receptor expression on cells exposed to HCV.

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