4.6 Article

Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Evades Innate Immune Response by 3C-Targeting of MDA5

期刊

CELLS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells10020271

关键词

foot-and-mouth disease virus; MDA5; non-structural protein; 3C; innate immune response

资金

  1. Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency, Republic of Korea [B-1543386-2020-21-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) infection, inhibition of MDA5 protein expression is primarily caused by the non-structural proteins Lb(pro) and 3C(pro), with 3C(pro) directly interacting with MDA5 protein through its protease activity. This study sheds light on the pathogenesis of FMDV and may contribute to the development of novel vaccines or therapeutic agents.
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious disease caused by FMD virus (FMDV) in cloven-hoofed animals. Retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I) and melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) are representative receptors in the cytoplasm for the detection of viral RNA and trigger antiviral responses, leading to the production of type I interferon. Although MDA5 is a crucial receptor for sensing picornavirus RNA, the interplay between MDA5 and FMDV is relatively unknown compared to the interplay between RIG-I and FMDV. Here, we observed that the FMDV infection inhibits MDA5 protein expression. Of the non-structural proteins, the Lb and 3C proteinases (Lb(pro) and 3C(pro)) were identified to be primarily responsible for this inhibition. However, the inhibition by 3C(pro) was independent of proteasome, lysosome and caspase-dependent pathway and was by 3C protease activity. A direct interaction between 3C(pro) and MDA5 protein was observed. In conclusion, this is the first report that 3C(pro) inhibits MDA5 protein expression as a mechanism to evade the innate immune response during FMDV infection. These results elucidate the pathogenesis of FMDV and provide fundamental insights for the development of a novel vaccine or therapeutic agent.

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