4.5 Article

Variability of tropism and replicative capacity of two naturally occurring influenza A H9N2 viruses in cell cultures from different tissues

期刊

AVIAN PATHOLOGY
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 212-220

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03079457.2016.1143086

关键词

Culture cells; kinetic replication; cell tropism; low pathogenicity influenza virus; virus host range

资金

  1. Research Grant from the Tunisian Ministry of Research
  2. research programme of the laboratory of Epidemiology and Veterinary Microbiology [LEVM09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies carried out on cell permissivity are of great interest to understand virus replication and pathogenicity. We described the results of a comparative analysis of replication efficiency of two naturally occurring influenza A H9N2 variants isolated from poultry and wild birds, differing by only two substitutions Q226L and T384N, in the receptor-binding site of haemagglutinin and the 380 loop region of NA proteins, respectively. Considering the overall growth of both viruses, lung cultures ensured the most efficient growth of TUN12L226N384 strain with titres up to 10(9) TCID50/ml whereas small intestine culture was highly susceptible to the TUN51Q226T384 virus reaching a titre of 10(6) TCID50/ml. The lowest replication was shown in liver cells. The addition of trypsin was essential for the replication of either virus in primary fibroblasts, but it had a marginal positive effect on virus replication in the four other culture types with maximum titres of 10(8) TCID50/ml. This means that in chicken, the proteolytic activation of the H9N2 viruses with the cleavage motif RSSR may be mediated by other endoproteases than trypsin. Further investigations should concentrate on the production of the appropriate set of viruses by a reverse genetics approach and the examination of cellular protease expression in chicken tissues. This would lead to a more complete understanding of the tropism of low-pathogenic Influenza A viruses.

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

4.5
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