4.6 Article

Specific association of glycoprotein B with lipid rafts during herpes simplex virus entry

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 77, 期 17, 页码 9542-9552

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.77.17.9542-9552.2003

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI-18289, R01 AI018289, R37 AI018289] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS036731, P01 NS030606, NS-30606, NS-36731] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Herpes simplex virus (HSV) entry requires the interaction of glycoprotein D (gD) with a cellular receptor such as herpesvirus entry mediator (HVEM or HveA) or nectin-1 (HveC). However, the fusion mechanism is still not understood. Since cholesterol-enriched cell membrane lipid rafts are involved in the entry of other enveloped viruses such as human immunodeficiency virus and Ebola virus, we tested whether HSV entry proceeds similarly. Vero cells and cells expressing either HVEM or nectin-1 were treated with cholesterol-sequestering drugs such as methyl-beta-cyclodextrin or nystatin and then exposed to virus. In all cases, virus entry was inhibited in a dose-dependent manner, and the inhibitory effect was fully reversible by replenishment of cholesterol. To examine the association of HVEM and nectin-1 with lipid rafts, we analyzed whether they partitioned into nonionic detergent-insoluble glycolipid-enriched membranes (DIG). There was no constitutive association of either receptor with DIG. Binding of soluble gD or virus to cells did not result in association of nectin-1 with the raft-containing fractions. However, during infection, a fraction of gB but not gC, gD, or gH associated with DIG. Similarly, when cells were incubated with truncated soluble glycoproteins, soluble gB but not gC was found associated with DIG. Together, these data favor a model in which HSV uses gB to rapidly mobilize lipid rafts that may serve as a platform for entry and cell signaling. It also suggests that gB may interact with a cellular molecule associated with lipid rafts.

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