4.4 Article

Higher resistance of porcine trigeminal ganglion neurons towards pseudorabies virus-induced cell death compared with other porcine cell types in vitro

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL VIROLOGY
卷 86, 期 -, 页码 1251-1260

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/vir.0.80760-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trigeminal ganglion (TG) neurons are important target cells for many alphaherpesviruses, constituting major sites for latency/reactivation events. Here, the in vitro kinetics of productive infection of the swine alphaherpesvirus pseudorabies virus (PRV) and resulting cell death in primary porcine TG neurons were determined, and these were compared with similar kinetics in many other porcine cell types. Confocal microscopy showed that all TG neurons expressed late genes such as viral glycoproteins, and that these glycoproteins were processed through the Golgi and reached the cell surface as in other cell types, albeit with a delay of +/- 2-6 h. However, TG neurons were much more resistant towards PRV-induced cell death compared with all other porcine cell types tested (non-neuronal TG cells, superior cervical ganglion neurons, epithelial kidney cells, arterial endothelial cells, dermal fibroblasts and cells derived from a porcine swine kidney cell line). About half of the TG neurons survived up to 96 h post-inoculation (end of experiment), whereas all other cell types almost completely succumbed within 2 days post-inoculation. In addition, infection with a strongly pro-apoptotic PRV strain that misses the anti-apoptotic US3 protein did not lead to substantial apoptosis in TG neurons, even at 72 h post-inoculation. Thus, primary porcine TG neurons can be infected with PRV in vitro, and are remarkably more resistant to PRV-induced cell death compared with other porcine cell types, suggesting a cell type-specific resistance to alphaherpesvirus-induced cell death that may have important implications for different aspects of the virus life cycle, including latency/reactivation events.

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

4.4
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