4.5 Article

Replication of a hepatitis C virus replicon clone in mouse cells

期刊

VIROLOGY JOURNAL
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1743-422X-3-89

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA040489, R01 CA108304, CA-108304, R37 CA040489, CA-40489] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R21 AI060391, AI-060391, R21 AI060391-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is a significant public health burden and small animal models are needed to study the pathology and immunobiology of the virus. In effort to develop experimental HCV mouse models, we screened a panel of HCV replicons to identify clones capable of replicating in mouse hepatocytes. Results: We report the establishment of stable HCV replication in mouse hepatocyte and fibroblast cell lines using replicons derived from the JFH-1 genotype 2a consensus sequence. Viral RNA replication efficiency in mouse cells was comparable to that observed in human Huh-7 replicon cells, with negative-strand HCV RNA and the viral NS5A protein being readily detected by Northern and Western Blot analysis, respectively. Although HCV replication was established in the absence of adaptive mutations that might otherwise compromise the in vitro infectivity of the JFH-1 clone, no infectious virus was detected when the culture medium from full length HCV RNA replicating mouse cells was titrated on Huh-7 cells, suggesting that the mouse cells were unable to support production of infectious progeny viral particles. Consistent with an additional block in viral entry, infectious JFH-1 particles produced in Huh-7 cells were not able to establish detectable HCV RNA replication in naive mouse cells. Conclusion: Thus, this report expands the repertoire of HCV replication systems and possibly represents a step toward developing mouse models of HCV replication, but it also highlights that other species restrictions might continue to make the development of a purely murine HCV infectious model challenging.

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