4.8 Article

Synthetic O-acetylated sialosides facilitate functional receptor identification for human respiratory viruses

期刊

NATURE CHEMISTRY
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 496-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41557-021-00655-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. TOP-PUNT Grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [718.015.003]
  2. ECHO Grant of the Council for Chemical Sciences of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [711.011.006]
  3. China Scholarship Council [2014-03250042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found specificities of human and animal viruses in binding to O-acetylated sialic acid. A chemoenzymatic methodology was developed to provide almost any sialate-acetylation pattern, and a microarray of O-acetylated sialoglycans was used to determine receptor specificity. Host-specific patterns of receptor recognition were observed, with human coronaviruses found to uniquely bind to a specific glycotope as part of a ganglioside.
The transmission of viruses from animal reservoirs to humans poses major threats to public health. Preparedness for future zoonotic outbreaks requires a fundamental understanding of how viruses of animal origin have adapted to binding to a cell surface component and/or receptor of the new host. Here we report on the specificities of human and animal viruses that engage with O-acetylated sialic acid, which include betacoronaviruses, toroviruses and influenza C and D viruses. Key to these studies was the development of a chemoenzymatic methodology that can provide almost any sialate-acetylation pattern. A collection of O-acetylated sialoglycans was printed as a microarray for the determination of receptor specificity. These studies showed host-specific patterns of receptor recognition and revealed that three distinct human respiratory viruses uniquely bind 9-O-acetylated alpha 2,8-linked disialoside. Immunofluorescence and cell entry studies support that such a glycotope as part of a ganglioside is a functional receptor for human coronaviruses.

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

4.8
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