4.8 Article

Role of enhanced receptor engagement in the evolution of a pandemic acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1713284115

关键词

conjunctivitis; coxsackievirus A24v; receptor; ICAM-1; sialic acid

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [NWO-VICI-91812628]
  2. German Research Foundation [SFB685]
  3. Wellcome Trust PhD Studentship [102572/B/13/Z]
  4. University of Leeds
  5. Wellcome Trust [108466/Z/15/Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis (AHC) is a painful, contagious eye disease, with millions of cases in the last decades. Coxsackievirus A24 (CV-A24) was not originally associated with human disease, but in 1970 a pathogenic variant (CV-A24v) emerged, which is now the main cause of AHC. Initially, this variant circulated only in Southeast Asia, but it later spread worldwide, accounting for numerous AHC outbreaks and two pandemics. While both CV-A24 variant and nonvariant strains still circulate in humans, only variant strains cause AHC for reasons that are yet unknown. Since receptors are important determinants of viral tropism, we set out to map the CV-A24 receptor repertoire and establish whether changes in receptor preference have led to the increased pathogenicity and rapid spread of CV-A24v. Here, we identify ICAM-1 as an essential receptor for both AHC-causing and non-AHC strains. We provide a high-resolution cryo-EM structure of a virus-ICAM-1 complex, which revealed critical ICAM-1-binding residues. These data could help identify a possible conserved mode of receptor engagement among ICAM-1-binding enteroviruses and rhinoviruses. Moreover, we identify a single capsid substitution that has been adopted by all pandemic CV-A24v strains and we reveal that this adaptation enhances the capacity of CV-A24v to bind sialic acid. Our data elucidate the CV-A24v receptor repertoire and point to a role of enhanced receptor engagement in the adaptation to the eye, possibly enabling pandemic spread.

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