4.4 Article

Assessment of the IFN-β response to four feline caliciviruses: Infection in CRFK cells

期刊

INFECTION GENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 352-360

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.06.003

关键词

IFN-beta response; Feline calicivirus

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31402201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Feline calicivirus (FCV) is a highly contagious pathogen with a widespread distribution. Although the cat genome has been sequenced, little is known about innate immunity in cats, which limits the understanding of FCV pathogenesis. To investigate the IFN-beta response during FCV infection in CRFK cells, we first cloned and identified the feline IFN-beta promoter sequence and the positive regulatory domain (PRD) motifs, which shared a high similarity with human and porcine IFN-beta promoters. Next, we found that infections with FCV strains F9, Bolin and HRB-SS at the 100 or 1000 TCID50 doses could not activate the IFN-beta promoter at 12 and 24 h post-infection. Only strain 2280 infection at a 1000 TCID50 dose could induce the IFN-beta promoter mainly through IRF3 and partially through NF-kappa B, at 24 h post-infection. However, the IFN response occurred much later and was smaller in magnitude compared with that following Sendai virus (SeV) infection. Further, we found that induction of the IFN-beta promoter by FCV 2280 infection depended on dsRNA and not on viral proteins. Finally, we examined whether the IFN-beta response had an antiviral effect against FCV replication. The over-expression of IFN-beta before exposure to the virus reduced viral yields by a range of 2.2-3.2 log(10)TCID(50), but its over-expression at 12 h post-infection did not inhibit FCV replication. Our results indicate that some FCV strains cannot induce IFN-beta expression in vitro, which may be a potential factor for FCV survival in cats. Whether this is important in evading the host interferon response in vivo must be investigated. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.4
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