4.8 Article

Inhibition of HCV Replication by Cyclophilin Antagonists Is Linked to Replication Fitness and Occurs by Inhibition of Membranous Web Formation

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 146, 期 5, 页码 1361-+

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.01.055

关键词

Drug Susceptibility; Direct-Acting Antivirals; Cyclosporine; HCV Protease

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB/TRR83, TP13, FOR 1202, TP1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Replication of hepatitis C virus (HCV) requires host cell factors, such as cyclophilin A (CypA). CypA binds to HCV's nonstructural protein (NS)5A to promote replication of viral RNA. CypA antagonists, such as cyclosporines, are potent inhibitors of HCV replication. NS2 modulates sensitivity of HCV to cyclosporines. We investigated why cyclosporines require NS2 to increase their inhibitory effect and how they block HCV replication. METHODS: We determined replication fitness and sensitivity of various HCV replicons, containing or lacking NS2, to cyclosporine and other direct-acting antiviral agents. We also analyzed the effects of cyclosporine on membranous web formation by electron microscopy. RESULTS: NS2-5B replicons of genotype 2a (JFH1), but not genotype 1b, had increased sensitivity to cyclosporine. This difference was lost with replication-attenuated NS3-5B JFH1 RNAs, showing that cyclosporine sensitivity is linked to reduced replication fitness of NS2-containing HCV RNAs. Fitness also determined sensitivity to a nucleoside analogue and an NS5A inhibitor, but not to telaprevir. Cyclosporine blocked de novo formation of the membranous web, but had little effect on established membranous replication factories. This block was prevented by cyclosporine resistance mutations in NS5A. CONCLUSIONS: Cleavage at the NS2/3 junction is a rate-limiting step in replication of particular HCV isolates and determines their sensitivity to CypA inhibitors. These drugs target de novo formation of the membranous web and RNA 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