4.6 Article

West Nile virus discriminates between DC-SIGN and DC-SIGNR for cellular attachment and infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 80, 期 3, 页码 1290-1301

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.80.3.1290-1301.2006

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [F31 RR005074, F31 RR 05074] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [T32 AI007632, T32 AI 07632, U54 AI057168, AI 50469, T32 AI 07324-13, U54 AI 57168, T32 AI007324, R01 AI050469] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM007229, T32 GM 007229] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The C-type lectins DC-SIGN and DC-SIGNR bind mannose-rich glycans with high affinity. In vitro, cells expressing these attachment factors efficiently capture, and are infected by, a diverse array of appropriately glycosylated pathogens, including dengue virus. In this study, we investigated whether these lectins could enhance cellular infection by West Nile virus (WNV), a mosquito-borne flavivirus related to dengue virus. We discovered that DC-SIGNR promoted WNV infection much more efficiently than did DC-SIGN, particularly when the virus was grown in human cell types. The presence of a single N-linked glycosylation site on either the prM or E glycoprotein of WNV was sufficient to allow DC-SIGNR-mediated infection, demonstrating that uncleaved prM protein present on a flavivirus virion can influence viral tropism under certain circumstances. Preferential utilization of DC-SIGNR was a specific property conferred by the WNV envelope glycoproteins. Chimeras between DC-SIGN and DC-SIGNR demonstrated that the ability of DC-SIGNR to promote WNV infection maps to its carbohydrate recognition domain. WNV virions and subviral particles bound to DC-SIGNR with much greater affinity than DC-SIGN. We believe this is the first report of a pathogen interacting more efficiently with DC-SIGNR than with DC-SIGN. Our results should lead to the discovery of new mechanisms by which these well-studied lectins discriminate among ligands.

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