4.6 Article

Generation of a replication-competent, propagation-deficient virus vector based on the transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus genome

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 76, 期 22, 页码 11518-11529

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.76.22.11518-11529.2002

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Replication-competent propagation-deficient virus vectors based on the transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus (TGEV) genome that are deficient in the essential E gene have been developed by complementation within E+ packaging cell lines. Cell lines expressing the TGEV E protein were established using the noncytopathic Sindbis virus replicon pSINrep21. In addition, cell lines stably expressing the E gene under the CW promoter have been developed. The Sindbis replicon vector and the ectopic TGEV E protein did not interfere with the rescue of infectious TGEV from full-length cDNA. Recombinant TGEV deficient in the nonessential 3a and 3b genes and the essential E gene (rTGEV-Delta3abDeltaE) was successfully rescued in these cell lines. rTGEV-Delta3abDeltaE reached high titers (10(7) PFU/ml) in baby hamster kidney cells expressing porcine aminopeptidase N (BHK-pAPN), the cellular receptor for TGEV, using Sindbis replicon and reached titers up to 5 X 10(-5) PFU/ml in cells stably expressing E protein under the control of the CW promoter. The virus titers were proportional to the E protein expression level. The rTGEV-Delta3abDeltaE virions produced in the packaging cell line showed the same morphology and stability under different pHs and temperatures as virus derived from the full-length rTGEV genome, although a delay in virus assembly was observed by electron microscopy and virus titration in the complementation system in relation to the wild-type virus. These viruses were stably grown for >10 passages in the E+ packaging cell lines. The availability of packaging cell lines will significantly facilitate the production of safe TGEV-derived vectors for vaccination and possibly gene therapy.

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