4.8 Article

Evolution of HIV-1 isolates that use a novel Vif-independent mechanism to resist restriction by human APOBEC3G

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 819-824

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.073

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI064046, R56 AI064046, R01 AI064046-03, R01 AI064046-02, R01 AI064046-04, R01 AI064046, R37 AI064046] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [F30 DA026310] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM080437-02, R01 GM080437, T32 GM008244] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The human APOBEC3G protein restricts the replication of Vif-deficient HIV-1 by deaminating nascent viral cDNA cytosines to uracils, leading to viral genomic strand G-to-A hypermutations [1-4]. However, the HIV-1 Vif protein triggers APOBEC3G degradation, which helps to explain why this innate defense does not protect patients [5]. The APOBEC3G-Vif interaction is a promising therapeutic target, but the benefit of the enabling of HIV-1 restriction in patients is unlikely to be known until Vif antagonists are developed. As a necessary prelude to such studies, cell-based HIV-1 evolution experiments were done to find out whether APOBEC3G can provide a long-term block to Vif-deficient virus replication and, if so, whether HIV-1 variants that resist restriction would emerge. APOBEC3G-expressing T cells were infected with Vif-deficient HIV-1. Virus infectivity was suppressed in 45/48 cultures for more than five weeks, but replication was eventually detected in three cultures. Virus-growth characteristics and sequencing demonstrated that these isolates were still Vif-deficient and that in fact, these viruses had acquired a promoter mutation and a Vpr null mutation. Resistance occurred by a novel tolerance mechanism in which the resistant viruses packaged less APOBEC3G and accumulated fewer hypermutations. These data support the development of antiretrovirals that antagonize Vif and thereby enable endogenous APOBEC3G to suppress HIV-1 replication.

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

4.8
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