4.4 Article

Cellular Scent of Influenza Virus Infection.

期刊

CHEMBIOCHEM
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 1040-1048

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cbic.201300695

关键词

breath analysis; esters; gas chromatography; influenza; mass spectrometry; volatile organic compounds

资金

  1. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
  2. Army Research Office [W911NF-06-1-0272]
  3. Hartwell Foundation
  4. National Institutes of Health [T32-HL007013, T32-ES007059]
  5. UC Davis School of Medicine
  6. NIH [8KL2TR000134-07K12]
  7. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the NIH [UL1 TR000002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emanating from humans have the potential to revolutionize non-invasive diagnostics. Yet, little is known about how these compounds are generated by complex biological systems, and even less is known about how these compounds are reflective of a particular physiological state. In this proof-of-concept study, we examined VOCs produced directly at the cellular level from B lymphoblastoid cells upon infection with three live influenza virus subtypes: H9N2 (avian), H6N2 (avian), and H1N1 (human). Using a single cell line helped to alleviate some of the complexity and variability when studying VOC production by an entire organism, and it allowed us to discern marked differences in VOC production upon infection of the cells. The patterns of VOCs produced in response to infection were unique for each virus subtype, while several other non-specific VOCs were produced after infections with all three strains. Also, there was a specific time course of VOC release post infection. Among emitted VOCs, production of esters and other oxygenated compounds was particularly notable, and these may be attributed to increased oxidative stress resulting from infection. Elucidating VOC signatures that result from the host cells response to infection may yield an avenue for non-invasive diagnostics and therapy of influenza and other viral infections.

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