4.6 Article

Structure and regulatory profile of the monkeypox inhibitor of complement: Comparison to homologs in vaccinia and variola and evidence for dimer formation

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 176, 期 6, 页码 3725-3734

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.6.3725

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [U54 AI 057160] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The outbreak of monkeypox in the Unites States in the summer of 2003 was the first occurrence of this smallpox-like disease outside of Africa. This limited human epidemic resulted from cross-infection of prairie dogs by imported African rodents. Although there were no human fatalities, this outbreak illustrates that monkeypox is an emerging natural infection and a potential biological weapon. We characterized a virulence factor expressed by monkeypox (monkeypox inhibitor of complement enzymes or MOPICE). We also compared its structure and regulatory function to homologous complement regulatory proteins of variola (SPICE) and vaccinia (VCP). In multiple expression systems, 5-30% of MOPICE, SPICE, and VCP consisted of function-enhancing disulfide-linked homodimers. Mammalian cells infected with vaccinia virus also expressed VCP dimers. MOPICE bound human C3b/C4b intermediate to that of SPICE and VCP. Cofactor activity of MOPICE was similar to VCP, but-both were similar to 100-fold less efficient than SPICE. SPICE and VCP, but not MOPICE, possessed decay-accelerating activity for the C3 and C5 convertases of the classical pathway. Additionally, all three regulators possessed heparin-binding capability. These studies demonstrate that MOPICE regulates human complement and suggest that dimerization is a prominent feature of these virulence factors. Thus, our data add novel information relative to the functional repertoire of these poxviral virulence factors. Furthermore, targeting and neutralizing these complement regulatory active sites via mAbs is a therapeutic approach that may enhance protection against smallpox.

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