4.4 Article

Human noroviruses recognize sialyl Lewis x neoglycoprotein

期刊

GLYCOBIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 309-320

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/glycob/cwn139

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [8266, 10932]
  2. Health Research Council in the southeast of Sweden
  3. Region des Pays de la Loire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The carbohydrate binding characteristics of a norovirus GII.3 (Chron1) and a GII.4 (Dijon) strain were investigated using virus-like particles (VLPs) and saliva samples from 81 individuals genotyped for FUT2 (secretor) and FUT3 (Lewis) and phenotyped for ABO and Lewis blood groups. The two VLPs showed a typical secretor-gene-dependent binding and bound significantly stronger to saliva from A, B, and AB than from O individuals (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001) but did not bind to any samples from secretor-negative individuals. The GII.3 strain showed larger interindividual variation and bound stronger to saliva from B than from A(2) secretors (P < 0.01). When assaying for binding to neoglycoproteins, the GII.3 and GII.4 strains were compared with the Norwalk GI.1 prototype strain. Although all three strains bound to Lewis b (and H type 1 chain) glycoconjugates, only the two GII strains showed an additional binding to sialyl Lewis x. This novel binding was specific since the VLPs did not bind to structural analogs, e.g., Lewis x or sialyl Lewis a, but only to sialyl Lewis x, sialyl diLewis x and sialylated type 2 chain conjugates. In inhibition experiments, the sialyl Lewis x conjugate was the most potent inhibitor. The minimal requirement for this potential receptor structure is Neu5Ac alpha 3Gal beta 4(Fuc alpha 3)GlcNAc beta 3Gal beta- where Fuc is not absolutely necessary for binding. Our study shows that some human norovirus GII strains have at least two binding specificities: one secretor-gene-dependent related to alpha 1,2-fucosylated carbohydrates and another related to alpha 2,3-sialylated carbohydrates of the type 2 chain, e.g., sialyl Lewis x.

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