4.7 Article

Human erythrocytes bind and inactivate type 5 adenovirus by presenting Coxsackie virus-adenovirus receptor and complement receptor 1

期刊

BLOOD
卷 113, 期 9, 页码 1909-1918

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2008-09-178459

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK
  2. European Union [LSHB-CT-2004-512087]
  3. Royal Society University Research Fellow
  4. Wellcome Trust
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C515871/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type 5 adenovirus (Ad5) is a human pathogen that has been widely developed for therapeutic uses, with only limited success to date. We report here the novel finding that human erythrocytes present Coxsackie virus-adenovirus receptor (CAR) providing an Ad5 sequestration mechanism that protects against systemic infection. Interestingly, erythrocytes from neither mice nor rhesus macaques present CAR. Excess Ad5 fiber protein or anti-CAR antibody inhibits the binding of Ad5 to human erythrocytes and cryo-electron microscopy shows attachment via the fiber protein of Ad5, leading to close juxtaposition with the erythrocyte membrane. Human, but not murine, erythrocytes also present complement receptor (CR1), which binds Ad5 in the presence of antibodies and complement. Transplantation of human erythrocytes into nonobese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficiency mice extends blood circulation of intravenous Ad5 but decreases its extravasation into human xenograft tumors. Ad5 also shows extended circulation in transgenic mice presenting CAR on their erythrocytes, although it clears rapidly in transgenic mice presenting erythrocyte CR1. Hepatic infection is inhibited in both transgenic models. Erythrocytes may therefore restrict Ad5 infection (natural and therapeutic) in humans, independent of antibody status, presenting a formidable challenge to Ad5 therapeutics. Stealthing of Ad5 using hydrophilic polymers may enable circumvention of these natural virus traps. (Blood. 2009; 113: 1909-1918)

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

4.7
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