4.6 Article

Interferons and ribavirin effectively inhibit Norwalk virus replication in replicon-bearing cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 81, 期 22, 页码 12111-12118

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00560-07

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [2 P20 RR016443-07, P20 RR016443] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of effective therapies for noroviral gastroenteritis has been hampered by the absence of a cell culture system. Recently, we reported the generation of Norwalk virus (NV) replicon-bearing cells in BHK21 and Huh-7 cells and demonstrated that alpha interferon (IFN-alpha) effectively inhibited the replication of NV in these cells. In continuing studies for screening potential antinoroviral agents, we tested IFN-gamma and ribavirin for their effects on NV replication in the cells. Like IFN-alpha, IFN-gamma inhibited the replication of NV in the replicon-bearing cells, showing the reduction of the NV genome and proteins in a dose-dependent manner. The effective dose for reducing 50% (ED50) of the NV genome and protein was calculated to be approximately 40 units/ml. When ribavirin was applied to the cells, it effectively reduced the NV genome and protein with the ED50 calculated as approximately 40 mu M. The combination of IFN-alpha and ribavirin showed additive effects on the inhibition of NV replication. With the addition of guanosine to the ribavirin treatment, moderately reversed antiviral effects were observed, suggesting that the ribavirin effect may be associated with the depletion of GTP in the cells. Sequencing analysis of the conserved polymerase regions of NV in the ribavirin-treated (100 mu M) and nontreated groups showed that the mutation rates were similar and indicated that ribavirin did not induce catastrophic mutations. The NV replicon-bearing cells provide an excellent tool for screening potential antinoroviral agents, and our results indicated that IFNs and ribavirin may be good therapeutic options for noroviral gastroenteritis.

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