Mammarenaviral Infection Is Dependent on Directional Exposure to and Release from Polarized Intestinal Epithelia

Warner, Nikole L.; Jokinen, Jenny D.; Beier, Juliane I.; Sokoloski, Kevin J.; Lukashevich, Igor S.

Since we cannot directly compare the absolute levels of attachment for each surface between the individual virus species, we must compare the ratios of apically and basolaterally bound viruses to identify statistical differences between the four OW arenaviruses used in this study. Overall, these comparisons indicate that LCMV-ARM and ML-29 differ from the other viruses, and each other, in regards to their binding proclivities. LCMV-Arm has a ratio of apical and basolateral attachment of approximately 1.5, indicating that attachment has a slight preference to the basolateral surface of the polarized Caco-2 cells ( Figure 6E ). The ratio of basolateral and apical attachment of LCMV-WE and MOPV of approximately 1, indicates that LCMV-WE and MOPV attachment is more or less equivalent in its binding to the apical and the basolateral surfaces of Caco-2 cells ( Figure 6E ). While LCMV-ARM is unique in its binding preference as compared to the other viruses, this indicates that LCMV-ARM, LCMV-WE, and MOPV all attach to some degree on the apical and basolateral surface of the cells. However, the ratio of basolateral and apical attachment of ML-29 indicates that there is a large difference between viral attachment between the two surfaces, with a significant preference for the apical side of the polarized Caco-2 cells ( Figure 6E ). ML-29's preference for the apical surface with comparatively little to no binding on the basolateral surface, is significantly different than that of LCMV and MOPV. Collectively, these data indicate that LASV-GP has a significantly different binding efficacy to the basolateral side of Caco-2 monolayers as compared to LCMV and MOPV. Since we cannot directly compare the absolute levels of attachment for each surface between the individual virus species, we must compare the ratios of apically and basolaterally bound viruses to identify statistical differences between the four OW arenaviruses used in this study. Overall, these comparisons indicate that LCMV-ARM and ML-29 differ from the other viruses, and each other, in regards to their binding proclivities. LCMV-Arm has a ratio of apical and basolateral attachment of approximately 1.5, indicating that attachment has a slight preference to the basolateral surface of the polarized Caco-2 cells ( Figure 6E ). The ratio of basolateral and apical attachment of LCMV-WE and MOPV of approximately 1, indicates that LCMV-WE and MOPV attachment is more or less equivalent in its binding to the apical and the basolateral surfaces of Caco-2 cells ( Figure 6E ). While LCMV-ARM is unique in its binding preference as compared to the other viruses, this indicates that LCMV-ARM, LCMV-WE, and MOPV all attach to some degree on the apical and basolateral surface of the cells. However, the ratio of basolateral and apical attachment of ML-29 indicates that there is a large difference between viral attachment between the two surfaces, with a significant preference for the apical side of the polarized Caco-2 cells ( Figure 6E ). ML-29's preference for the apical surface with comparatively little to no binding on the basolateral surface, is significantly different than that of LCMV and MOPV. Collectively, these data indicate that LASV-GP has a significantly different binding efficacy to the basolateral side of Caco-2 monolayers as compared to LCMV and MOPV.