4.6 Article

Differences in the fitness of two diverse wild-type human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates are related to the efficiency of cell binding and entry

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 79, 期 11, 页码 7121-7134

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.79.11.7121-7134.2005

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI43645-02, R56 AI049170, P30 AI036219, AI36219, AI 058701, R21 AI049170, AI49170, R01 AI049170, R21 AI058701] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM007250] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of one primary human immunodeficiency virus type I (HIV-1) isolate to outcompete another in primary CD4(+) human lymphoid cells appears to be mediated by the efficiency of host cell entry. This study was designed to test the role of entry on fitness of wild-type HIV-1 isolates (e.g., replicative capacity) and to examine the mechanism(s) involved in differential entry efficiency. The gp120 coding regions of two diverse HIV-1 isolates (the more-fit subtype B strain, B5-91US056, and less-fit C strain, C5-97ZA003) were cloned into a neutral HIV-1 backbone by using a recently described yeast cloning technique. The fitness of the primary B5 HIV-1 isolates and its env gene cloned into the NL4-3 laboratory strain had similar fitness, and both were more fit than the C5 primary isolate and its env/NL4-3 chimeric counterpart. Increased fitness of the B5 over C5 virus was mediated by the gp120 coding region of the env gene. An increase in binding/fusion, as well as decreased sensitivity to entry inhibitors (PSC-RANTES and T-20), was observed in cell fusion assays mediated by B5 gp120 compared to C5 gp120. Competitive binding assays using a novel whole virus-cell system indicate that the primary or chimeric B5 had a higher avidity for CD4/CCR5 on host cells than the C5 counterpart. This increased avidity of an HIV-1 isolate for its cell receptors may be a significant factor influencing overall replicative capacity or fitness.

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