Selected article for: "bona fide receptor and enveloped virus entry"

Author: Jemielity, Stephanie; Wang, Jinyize J.; Chan, Ying Kai; Ahmed, Asim A.; Li, Wenhui; Monahan, Sheena; Bu, Xia; Farzan, Michael; Freeman, Gordon J.; Umetsu, Dale T.; DeKruyff, Rosemarie H.; Choe, Hyeryun
Title: TIM-family Proteins Promote Infection of Multiple Enveloped Viruses through Virion-associated Phosphatidylserine
  • Document date: 2013_3_28
  • ID: 0fais1pz_50
    Snippet: There are several plausible explanations for why not every PS receptor supports the entry of every enveloped virus (Fig. 9) . First, PS receptor usage could be affected by the endocytic routes of bona fide virus receptors. For example, the six arenaviruses used in Figure 1C can be divided into three groups with respect to TIM1 use: LASV and LCMV, which use alpha-dystroglycan as their cellular receptor [59] only weakly utilize TIM1; MACV and JUNV .....
    Document: There are several plausible explanations for why not every PS receptor supports the entry of every enveloped virus (Fig. 9) . First, PS receptor usage could be affected by the endocytic routes of bona fide virus receptors. For example, the six arenaviruses used in Figure 1C can be divided into three groups with respect to TIM1 use: LASV and LCMV, which use alpha-dystroglycan as their cellular receptor [59] only weakly utilize TIM1; MACV and JUNV whose receptor is TfR1 [42, 50] use TIM1 with moderate efficiency; and TCRV and AMAV, which lack a known human receptor, utilize TIM1 with exceptionally high efficiency. For TIM1 to enhance infection, the endocytic pathways of TIM1mediated internalization probably need to coincide with those of the primary receptors of these viruses. The finding that hTIM1 use by MACV is dependent on the presence of hTfR1 (Fig. 6B) is consistent with this hypothesis. However, the same explanation may not fully describe the clear differences in TIM1 usage among EBOV, MARV, H7N1 and SARS-CoV (Figs. 1 and S1), all of which need access to late endosomes/lysosomes for productive infection. A second possibility, suggested by Morizono and colleagues for hAxl, is that high-affinity receptors may render hTIM1 use ineffective for some viruses [35] . Although appealing, this receptor-affinity hypothesis cannot explain the absence of TIM1 usage by the SARS-CoV SZ isolate with low affinity to hACE2 or the finding that MACV's hTIM1 use was not enhanced upon blockage of the hTfR1-mediated entry route (Fig. 6) . A final possibility is that steric hinderance by individual viral entry proteins may affect TIM1-mediated enhancement. Specifically, long or densely packed entry proteins, which are usually covered with glycans, may prevent PS receptors from reaching PS on the viral membrane. Consistent with this hypothesis, truncated hTIM1 variants and hTIM3, which has a much shorter mucin stalk than hTIM1, were used less efficiently than wt hTIM1 by several pseudoviruses (Figs. 7 and S4 ).

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • cellular receptor and clear difference: 1, 2
    • cellular receptor and endocytic pathway: 1, 2
    • cellular receptor and entry protein: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • cellular receptor and entry route: 1
    • endocytic pathway and entry protein: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • endocytic pathway and entry route: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    • endocytic route and entry route: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6