4.4 Article

Establishment of an HIV cell-cell fusion assay by using two genetically modified HeLa cell lines and reporter gene

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 114, 期 2, 页码 159-166

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2003.08.016

关键词

human immunodeficiency virus; cell fusion; HeLa cell; reporter gene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infection of human cells with the human immunodeficiency virus type I (HIV-1) can be mimicked by a fusion process between cells expressing the HIV envelope protein (Env) and cells expressing both human CD4 together with the appropriate human chemokine receptors. In this study, a T-tropic HIV cell-cell fusion assay was established that utilized CD4, human CXCR4 and HIV NL4-3 gp160 as fusion components and a T7 polymerase-activated luciferase as a reporter system. The HeLa T4 cells used, expressed CD4 and CXCR4, and the applied HeLa KS386 cells expressed HIV NL4-3 gp160. By combining HeLa T4 cells with HeLa KS386 cells, an approximately about 100- to 300-fold increase in luciferase activity could be elicited relative to the control. The addition of anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody (Mab) (RPA-T4) or anti-CXCR4 Mab (12G5) in the assay significantly inhibited the fusion event; in contrast, an anti-CCR5 Mab (2D7) had no effect, indicating that the fusion assay was CD4 and CXCR4 dependent. In this report, fusion events could be monitored by both the luciferase reporter system and syncytia formation. Fusion events were monitored and compared using these two approaches. The luciferase reporter system was found to be more sensitive than syncytia formation. Moreover, compared with previous HIV fusion models, such as using recombinant vaccinia viruses, this system has several advantages, including simplicity and sensitivity. Finally, the system provides a powerful tool to study fusion mechanisms mediated by T-tropic HIV gp 160, as well as to screen for fusion-blocking antibodies and antiviral agents. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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