4.6 Article

The Missing Link in Epstein-Barr Virus Immune Evasion: the BDLF3 Gene Induces Ubiquitination and Downregulation of Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I (MHC-I) and MHC-II

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 90, 期 1, 页码 356-367

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02183-15

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (MRC) [G0901755]
  2. Medical Research Council [G9818340, G0901755] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [G9818340, G0901755] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) to spread and persist in human populations relies on a balance between host immune responses and EBV immune evasion. CD8(+) cells specific for EBV late lytic cycle antigens show poor recognition of target cells compared to immediate early and early antigen-specific CD8(+) cells. This phenomenon is due in part to the early EBV protein BILF1, whose immunosuppressive activity increases with lytic cycle progression. However, published data suggest the existence of a hitherto unidentified immune evasion protein further enhancing protection against late EBV antigen-specific CD8(+) cells. We have now identified the late lytic BDLF3 gene as the missing link accounting for efficient evasion during the late lytic cycle. Interestingly, BDLF 3 also contributes to evasion of CD4(+) cell responses to EBV. We report that BDLF3 downregulates expression of surface major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class 1 and class 11 molecules in the absence of any effect upon other surface molecules screened, including CD54 (ICAM-1) and CD71 (transferrin receptor). BDLF3 both enhanced internalization of surface MHC molecules and reduced the rate of their appearance at the cell surface. The reduced expression of surface MHC molecules correlated with functional protection against CD8(+) and CD4(+) T cell recognition. The molecular mechanism was identified as BDLF3-induced ubiquitination of MHC molecules and their subsequent downregulation in a proteasome-dependent manner.

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

4.6
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