4.5 Article

Glycerol Monolaurate Inhibits Wild-Type African Swine Fever Virus Infection in Porcine Macrophages

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12101193

关键词

African swine fever virus; antiviral; mitigation; glycerol monolaurate; monoglyceride

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that glycerol monolaurate (GML) can effectively inhibit wild-type ASFV infection of porcine macrophages, and the onset of antiviral activity corresponds to the critical micelle concentration of GML.
Naturally abundant antimicrobial lipids, such as fatty acids and monoglycerides, that disrupt membrane-enveloped viruses are promising mitigants to inhibit African swine fever virus (ASFV). Among mitigant candidates in this class, glycerol monolaurate (GML) has demonstrated particularly high antiviral activity against laboratory-adapted ASFV strains. However, there is an outstanding need to further determine the effects of GML on wild-type ASFV strains, which can have different virulence levels and sensitivities to membrane-disrupting compounds as compared to laboratory-adapted strains. Herein, we investigated the antiviral effects of GML on a highly virulent strain of a wild-type ASFV isolate (Armenia/07) in an in vitro porcine macrophage model. GML treatment caused a concentration-dependent reduction in viral infectivity, and there was a sharp transition between inactive and active GML concentrations. Low GML concentrations had negligible effect on viral infectivity, whereas sufficiently high GML concentrations caused a >99% decrease in viral infectivity. The concentration onset of antiviral activity matched the critical micelle concentration (CMC) value of GML, reinforcing that GML micelles play a critical role in enabling anti-ASFV activity. These findings validate that GML can potently inhibit wild-type ASFV infection of porcine macrophages and support a biophysical explanation to guide antimicrobial lipid performance optimization for pathogen mitigation applications.

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