What happens during viral interference between two viruses?

enveloped virus replication （1）
enveloped virus replication （2a）
enveloped virus replication （2b）
enveloped virus replication （3）
enveloped virus replication （4）
Two aspect factors:
non-permissive cells → Abortive infection
are genetically deficient and incapable of producing infectious progeny virions.
can supplement the genetic deficiency and make defective viruses replicate progeny virions when they simultaneously infect host cell with defective viruses.
e.g., HDV & HBV
- Defective viruses lack gene(s) necessary for a complete infectious cycle;
- helper viruses provide missing functions;
- 100:1 (defective to infectious particles)
- DIP (defective interfering particle) : When the defective viruses can not replicate, but can interfere other congeneric mature virion entering the cells, we call them defective interfering particles (DIP).
Virus infection which does not produce infectious progeny because the host cell cannot provide the enzyme, energy or materials required for the viral replication.
The host cells that cannot provide the conditions for viral replication.
The host cells that can provide the conditions for viral replication.
III. Viral interference:
When two viruses infect simultaneously one host cell, One type of virus
may inhibit replication of another type of virus.
Range of interference occurrence
- between the different species of viruses;
- between the same species of viruses;
- between the inactivated viruses and live viruses.
Main mechanisms of viral interference:
a. One type of virus inhibit or prevent subsequent adsorption and penetration
of another virus by blocking or destroying receptors on host cell.
b. The competition of two viruses for replication materials, e.g., receptor
polymerase, translation initiation factors, etc.
c. One type of virus may induce the infected cell to produce interferon that
can prevent viral replication.
The mechanism of IFN function
Significance of viral interference:
a. Stop viral replication and lead to patient recovery.
b. Inactivated virus or live attenuated virus can be used as vaccine to
interfere with the infection of the virulent virus.
May decrease the function of vaccine when bivalent/trivalent vaccine is used.
Just for your practice see the answers at the end.
Fill in the blank
1-The surrounding protein coat of a virus is called the _______ and it is composed of protein subunits called _________.

Mutual exclusion occurs when a host cell is simultaneously infected with two competing viruses, but only one virus goes on to replicate itself. This phenomenon was originally described in bacteriophages by Delbrück in 1945. Mutual exclusion implies that the virus particle which infects first alters the host cell in such a way that a second infection is unlikely. Subsequent studies found that mutual exclusion not only occurs between different viruses but also with nearly identical viruses, presumably as a way to avoid “super-infection” (Dulbecco, R. 1952 Mutual exclusion between related phages. J Bacteriol 63, 209-217). While the virus that wins the race prevents infection by additional viruses, the excluded viruses may interfere with its replication, which is referred to as a “depressor effect” (Delbrück M. 1945 Interference Between Bacterial Viruses: III. The Mutual Exclusion Effect and the Depressor Effect. J Bacteriol. 50(2): 151-170). There are different mechanisms underlying mutual exclusion and depression among bacteriophages, and still, not all of them are understood.
In some instances, exclusion causes the out-competed virus to be rapidly degraded. For example, with bacteriophage T3, degradation occurs after adsorption of the primary infecting phage but before the virus genome is expressed. There is indirect evidence with phage λ that host membrane depolarization is triggered by the successful infecting particle, which initiates exclusion.
Mutual exclusion not only occurs among bacteriophages but also in viruses infecting certain unicellular, eukaryotic chlorella-like green algae (the chlorella viruses). Plaques arising from single cells simultaneously inoculated with two different chlorella viruses usually only contain one of the two viruses. Previously, the mechanism underlying chlorella virus mutual exclusion is unknown. Chlorella viruses often encode DNA restriction endonucleases and it was originally suggested that one function of the DNA restriction endonucleases might be to exclude infection by other viruses. A new study indicates that chlorella viruses prevent multiple infections by depolarizing the host cell membrane (Chlorella Viruses Prevent Multiple Infections by Depolarizing the Host Membrane. J Gen Virol. Apr 22 2009).

A simple model of recombination
between different RNA viruses, with possible constraints, is
presented in Fig. 1.
In a sense, recombinogenic viruses are all alike in that they
successfully pass through each stage outlined in the model.
Every non-recombining virus, on the other hand, is different in
its own way since constraints that block recombination could
act by breaking any link in the chain and could involve not just
viral genetic factors, but host and ecological factors particular
to that virus. The first prerequisite for successful recombination
(Fig. 1) is that an individual host must be infected by different
virus strains. [This is not quite true, of course, since (1)
recombination sometimes involves host RNA, (2) recombination
could occur between viruses that have diverged
within a clonally infected individual, and (3) evolutionarily
invisible recombination could occur between identical RNA
molecules.] Host coinfection might never occur with some
viruses simply because their divergent forms do not usually
overlap in space and time. Multivalent live-attenuated vaccines
CFDJ can be seen as potential risks in this context since they could
effectively release some viruses from this constraint. Host
factors could act at this stage too if, for instance, an immune
response reduces the window for simultaneous infection by
quickly clearing a virus, or prevents superinfection altogether
by blocking secondary infections.
Having successfully coinfected a single host, divergent
viruses must next coinfect a single cell if recombination is to
proceed. This step could be blocked by host factors, either by
an immune response that keeps virus numbers low enough to
prevent multiple infection of any individual cell, or by host cell
genetic factors that block entry of more than one virus particle
into a cell (Danis et al., 1993). Viral factors, interestingly, might
also enforce significant constraints at this stage of the model.
Recent evidence demonstrates that intracellular competition
can be costly to viruses that infect the same host cell (Turner
&Chao, 1998).

Those that can keep cells to themselves
by limiting or preventing coinfection should be selectively
favoured, and many have evolved mechanisms to do just this
(Simon et al., 1990; Singh et al., 1997; Turner et al., 1999). One
of these, vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), is an RNA virus in
which recombination between different strains has not been
detected. Might superinfection exclusion be a constraint on
recombination in VSV? Another, the segmented bacteriophage
u6, seems to limit excessive superinfection but not to the
extreme of one-virus-per-cell that would preclude genetic
exchange. Instead, it appears to have evolved an optimal
coinfection limit of two to three viruses per cell, presumably to
balance the costs of intracellular competition with the bene®ts
of reassortment (Turner et al., 1999). Since the advantage (and
cost) of recombination in any particular virus will be mediated
by such factors as the selective pressure for novel variation, the
importance of interactions between different parts of the
genome, as well as the virus mutation rate and population size,
we should expect different optima (and therefore different
degrees of constraint) in different cases.
If divergent viruses manage to infect the same cell, the next
step is simply for one of them to replicate in the presence of the
RNA of the other. This is not necessarily inevitable even in
coinfected cells. The replication of the u6 RNAs, for example,
takes place within a procapsid and it is thought that the entry
of two different RNA molecules of the same genomic segment
into this sequestered environment is impossible or at least very
rare (Mindich et al., 1992). This could explain the lack of
homologous recombination in this phage. Thus the vagaries of
RNA replication in certain viruses could impose physical
constraints on the production of hybrids.
Template switching by the viral replicase, the mechanism
whereby recombinant RNA molecules are actually created,
may also be limited by physical constraints. The negativestrand RNA viruses,
for example, whose genomes are packaged
into ribonucleoprotein structures by association
with N protein, may be less permissive than other RNA viruses
to copy±choice recombination.

This inhibits viral replication and normal cell ribosome function, which may lead to killing both the virus and susceptible host cells. Various RNA species within the cell are degraded by activated RNAse L, another interferon-induced gene, thereby further reducing protein synthesis.
Furthermore, interferon leads to upregulation of MHC I and therefore to increased presentation of viral peptides to cytotoxic CD8 T cells, as well as to a change in the proteasome (exchange of some beta subunits by b1i, b2i, b5i - then known as the immunoproteasome) which leads to increased production of MHC I compatible peptides.
Interferon can cause increased p53 activity in virus infected cells. It acts as an inducer and causes increased production of the p53 gene product. This promotes apoptosis, limiting the ability of the virus to spread. Increased levels of transcription are observed even in cells which are not infected, but only infected cells show increased apoptosis. This increased transcription may serve to prepare susceptible cells so they can respond quickly in the case of infection. When p53 is induced by viral presence, it behaves differently than it usually does. Some p53 target genes are expressed under viral load, but others, especially those that respond to DNA damage, aren’t. One of the genes that is not activated is p21, which can promote cell survival. Leaving this gene inactive would help promote the apoptotic effect. Interferon enhances the apoptotic effects of p53, but it is not strictly required. Normal cells exhibit a stronger apoptotic response than cells without p53.
Additionally, interferon has been shown to have therapeutic effect against certain cancers. It is probable that one mechanism of this effect is p53 induction. This could be useful clinically: Interferons could supplement or replace chemotherapy drugs that activate p53 but also cause unwanted side effects. Some of these side effects can be serious, severe and permanent.
Virus resistance to interferonsEdit
In a study of the blocking of interferon (IFN) by the Japanese Encephalitis Virus (JEV), a group of researchers infected human recombinant IFN-alpha with JEV, DEN-2, and PL406, which are all viruses, and found that some viruses have manifested methods of avoiding the IFN-alpha/beta response.

Unfortunately, such scarcity of information currently limits the conclusions that can be drawn from such markedly incomplete protein data of large DNA viruses.
Interfaces of Protein Interactions in Virus–Host Systems
In order for proteins to interact with each other, their respective binding sites must be in direct physical contact, either in a stable or transient mode (Byrum et al., 2012). Such binding sites are called “interfaces”: three-dimensional structures formed by sets of amino acid residues directly responsible for the recognition of binding partners (Figure 1; Franzosa and Xia, 2011). Deleterious or beneficial mutations occur especially on interfaces, affecting binding affinity due to impairment or improvement of protein electrostatic and structural properties (Daugherty and Malik, 2012).
Figure 1. Structure of a DDI between a host domain (V-set domain, blue) and a viral domain (Herpes glycop D domain, red; PDB 3U82). By rotating each protein 90° outwards, the residues located at no more than 4.5 Å away from its partner's surface are colored yellow, indicating the interface residues.
In the context of virus–host PPIs, protein–binding sites can be classified as endogenous or exogenous interfaces. Endogenous interfaces are responsible for mediating interactions between proteins belonging to viral or host proteomes, i.e., host–host or virus–virus PPIs. On the other hand, exogenous interfaces mediate interactions between proteins belonging to distinct proteomes, as seen in virus–host PPIs (Franzosa and Xia, 2011).
In virus–host systems, extensive competition for interfaces is common between endogenous and exogenous partners, and viral proteins frequently interfere with host–host protein interactions (Franzosa et al., 2012). Such competition is so frequent that most of the proteins that have at least one known host–host interaction are also involved in virus–host interactions (Franzosa and Xia, 2011).
Having a broader understanding of virus–host PPIs and their interfaces is crucial for the development of new antiviral therapies, like the design of small molecules capable of binding and blocking essential interactions of viral processes (Bailer and Haas, 2009; Gardner et al., 2015).

These viruses therefore have the ability to carry on viral replication and production of new viruses as they normally would in the absence of IFN. The ways that viruses find a way around the IFN response is through the inhibition of interferon signaling, production, and the blocking of the functions of IFN-induced proteins.
It is not unusual to find viruses encoding for a multiple number of mechanisms to allow them to elude the IFN response at many different levels. While doing the study with JEV, Lin and his coworkers found that IFN-alpha's inability to block JEV means that JEV may be able to block IFN-alpha signaling which in turn would prevent IFN from having STAT1, STAT2, ISGF3, and IRF-9 signaling. DEN-2 also significantly reduces interferon ability to active JAK-STAT. Some other viral gene products that have been found to have an effect on IFN signaling include EBNA-2, Polyomavirus large T antigen, EBV EBNA1, HPV E7, HCMV, and HHV8. Several poxviruses encode a soluble IFN receptor homologue that acts as a decoy to inhibit the biological activity of IFN, and that activity is for IFN to bind to their cognate receptors on the cell surface to initiate a signaling cascade, known as the Janus kinase(JAK)-signal transducer and activation of transcription(Stat) pathways. For example, a group of researchers found that the B18R protein, which acts as a type 1 IFN receptor and is produced by the vaccinia virus, inhibited IFN's ability to begin the phosphorylation of JAK1 which reduced the antiviral effect of IFN.
Some viruses can encode proteins that bind to dsRNA. In a study where the researchers infected Human U cells with reovirus-sigma3 protein and then, using the Western blot test, they found that reovirus-sigma3 protein does bind to dsRNA. Along with that, another study in which the researchers infected mouse L cells with vaccinia virus E3L found that E3L encodes the p25 protein that binds to dsRNA. Without double stranded RNA (dsRNA), because it is bound to by the proteins, it is not able to create IFN-induced PKR and 2'-5' oligoadenylate-synthetase making IFN ineffective.

With some dedication, you can still manage to find the correct orders of the paper sheets and build the furniture piece. Similarly, the cell can still build a viral progeny of functional viruses.
However, let us consider the event of superinfection, i.e. a phenomenon that takes place when two parasites get into the same host at the same time.
When infected by two influenza viruses, the cell has to manage as many as 16 pages of instructions, i.e. 16 genomic fragments, to build a progeny of viruses. Because the cell has no capability of defining what fragments came from which of the two viruses, the result will be the production of mixed, "chimeric" viral particles containing some components coming from the one virus, and some from the other, which might be unknown, and therefore catastrophic, to our unprepared immune system.
Classification of influenza viruses
In the modern virology, influenza viruses are classified according to the sequence of two molecules that they expose on the surface: Hemagglutinin (H) and Neuraminidase (N). For Influenza A viruses, 18 types of H and 11 types of N have been described. For instance, the widely spread H3N2 Influenza A virus exposes Hemaglutinin of the 3rd type on its surface, and Neuraminidase of the 2nd. Another virus widely spread among humans is H1N1.
While the function of Hemagglutinin is to recognise and start the phases of entrance into the target cell, Nerauminidase has the opposite role, that is to release the newly formed viral particles from the cells, in the context of a mechanism called "viral budding".
The fact that so many different types of these two molecules exist is a consequence of their position on the viral particle: exposed on the surface, H and N are more easily identified by our immune system. The virus, driven by the mechanism of evolution, will need to change some parts of these molecules so that they can pass unobserved to the host's defences .
However, considering that our immune system can get trained in identifying the Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase circulating in humans and generally keep up with the changes that are accumulated, where do viruses pick up new forms of these molecules during superinfection?

Blocking of the alpha interferon-induced Jak-Stat signaling pathway by Japanese encephalitis virus infection. J. Virol. 78 (17): 9285–94.
- ↑ Sen GC (2001). Viruses and interferons. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55: 255–81.
- ↑ Alcamí A, Symons JA, Smith GL (December 2000). The vaccinia virus soluble alpha/beta interferon (IFN) receptor binds to the cell surface and protects cells from the antiviral effects of IFN. J. Virol. 74 (23): 11230–9.
- ↑ Miller JE, Samuel CE (September 1992). Proteolytic cleavage of the reovirus sigma 3 protein results in enhanced double-stranded RNA-binding activity: identification of a repeated basic amino acid motif within the C-terminal binding region. J. Virol. 66 (9): 5347–56.
- ↑ Chang HW, Watson JC, Jacobs BL (June 1992). The E3L gene of vaccinia virus encodes an inhibitor of the interferon-induced, double-stranded RNA-dependent protein kinase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89 (11): 4825–9.
- ↑ Minks MA, West DK, Benvin S, Baglioni C (October 1979). Structural requirements of double-stranded RNA for the activation of 2',5'-oligo(A) polymerase and protein kinase of interferon-treated HeLa cells. J. Biol. Chem. 254 (20): 10180–3.
- ↑ http://www.pathobiologics.org/ivphc/ref/iav121604.doc
- ↑ Bhatti Z, Berenson CS (2007). Adult systemic cat scratch disease associated with therapy for hepatitis C. BMC Infect Dis 7: 8.
- ↑ Nagano Y, Kojima Y (October 1954). Pouvoir immunisant du virus vaccinal inactivé par des rayons ultraviolets. C. R. Seances Soc. Biol. Fil. 148 (19-20): 1700–2.
- ↑ Nagano Y, Kojima Y (1958).

The effect of an infectious agent on health and disease is likely influenced by its diverse interactions with other infectious agents claiming the same host or host cell. In other words, disease potential is dependent on interactions between numerous different pathogens and the host’s defense mechanisms. Understanding these interactions may help to better predict the outcome of disease, improve treatment, and identify novel therapeutic strategies. The Experimental Virology group investigates general concepts, molecular pathways, and implications of virus-virus interactions in the co-infected host, using the complex and competitive relationship between adeno-associated virus (AAV) and its helper viruses as a model. The knowledge gained from these studies can be applied also to investigate more complex biosocial processes of disease, for example on the level of an infected host, thereby forming a strong link between the Experimental Virology and the Molecular and Clinical Veterinary Virology groups.
The Experimental Virology group engages also in the development and use of viruses for applications in Gene Therapy and Vaccination.
Cover Illustration: Electronmicrograph of herpesvirus particles

Large dsDNA viruses show the most variable protein domain repertoires, while most RNA and retrotranscribing viruses, due to their genome sizes, perform all their processes using few domains, which are reused throughout their entire infection cycles (Zheng et al., 2014). Owing to these proteomic peculiarities, viruses diversify and/or maintain their interaction capabilities via different mechanisms of molecular evolution, including conservation (orthology); HGT (xenology); gene duplication (paralogy); and molecular mimicry (convergence; Alcami, 2003; Koonin et al., 2006; Garamszegi et al., 2013).
In the mode of evolution by orthology, if a domain pair known to interact is found in two closely related systems (organisms), these domains are likely to be real interacting partners in both systems (interologs). Although the mere presence of orthologs in two systems does not necessarily imply a direct interaction among them (Riley et al., 2005), their co-occurrence could be indicative of potentially conserved interactions, making these proteins good targets for further studies (Dyer et al., 2011). Examples of interologs are observed among herpesviruses, DNA viruses that show a large set of genes and interactions shared among almost all members of the family Herpesviridae (Bailer and Haas, 2009). An example of such conservation in observed in the interaction between the cellular receptor Nectin-1 and the envelope glycoprotein D encoded by alphaherpesviruses. Nectins are commonly found at adherens junction (GO:0005912), and are used by viruses as cell entry mediators (GO:0046718). Figure 3 illustrates such an interaction in two host–virus pairs: “human × HHV-2,” and “pig × SHV-1.”
Figure 3. Interologs: homologous interactions. (A) Protein-protein interaction (PDB 4MYW) between a human Nectin-1 (blue protein) and a Glycoprotein D encoded by a Human Herpesvirus 2 (gD, red protein). (B) Interaction (PDB 5X5W) between swine Nectin-1 (light cyan protein) and Suid Herpesvirus 1 gD (pink protein).

However, several different mechanisms of transcriptional interference may clarify this point (reviewed in  and ) (see Fig 1): (i) Steric hindrance: when the provirus integrates in the same transcriptional orientation as the host gene, "read-through" transcription from an upstream promoter displaces key transcription factors from the HIV-1 promoter as previously shown for Sp1  and prevents the assembly of the pre-initiation complex on the viral promoter, thereby hindering HIV-1 transcription. The integrated virus is thought to be transcribed along with the other intronic regions of the cellular gene, but is then merely spliced out. This mechanism has been confirmed in J-Lat cells, a CD4+ T-cell line used as a model for HIV-1 postintegration latency . Lenasi and colleagues have shown that transcriptional interference could be reversed by inhibiting the upstream transcription or by cooperatively activating viral transcription initiation and elongation. Of note, certain host transcription factors and/or viral activators, which bind strongly to their cognate sites, could resist the passage of "read-through" RNA polymerase II (RNAPII) . As studies in yeast have demonstrated that the elongating polymerase is followed by a rapid refolding of histones in a closed configuration to counteract transcription initiation at cryptic sites in the transcription unit , chromatin structure and epigenetic events could also be implicated in transcriptional interference. Conversely, Han et al.  have demonstrated that upstream transcription could enhance HIV-1 gene expression without significant modification of the chromatin status in the region when the provirus is integrated in the same orientation as the host gene. These partially contradictory studies have been questioned  based on earlier studies that reported transcriptional interference as important in repressing viral promoters integrated in the same orientation as an upstream host gene promoter [60, 65, 66]. Interestingly, Marcello and colleagues  have recently reported that an integrated provirus suffering from transcriptional interference in basal conditions becomes transcriptionally active following Tat expression; and that this provirus can switch off the transcription of the host gene within which it has integrated or can allow the coexistence of expression of both host and viral genes. Further analysis of the mechanisms exploited by host genes to regulate a viral promoter inserted in their transcriptional unit or by the virus to counterbalance the host gene control will be needed to completely elucidate these transcriptional interference events.

Similarly to HGT events, gene duplications are evolutionary processes mainly found among dsDNA viruses, as observed in herpesviruses, adenoviruses and poxviruses (Shackelton and Holmes, 2004). An example of evolution by gene duplication is observed for the herpesvirus Glycoprotein D previously shown in Figure 1. Some alphaherpesviruses express a second copy of that protein, glycoprotein G (gG), a paralog that does not act as a viral entry mediators, but in fact shows a modified function, binding a broad range of chemokines to prevent their interaction with specific cellular receptors (Bryant et al., 2003). Interestingly, the presence of paralogs in PINs is not exclusive to viruses.
Finally, acquisition of a new interaction partner via convergent evolution is also a recurrent mechanism in virus–host networks. As they evolve at faster mutation rates, viruses can rapidly acquire new binding partners by mimicking and targeting interfaces of host proteins (Elde and Malik, 2009; Standfuss, 2015). A particular example is observed among Dengue viruses, Vaccinia viruses, and HIV-1, which independently acquired similar mechanisms of protein interaction and RNA recognition, which are essential to promote genome replication and mRNA translation (Garcia-Montalvo et al., 2004; Alvarez et al., 2006; Katsafanas and Moss, 2007). In this way, viruses can evolve not only by homology (HGT, duplication, and conservation) but also by analogy, allowing them to share interacting partners and adopt common strategies of infection (Dyer et al., 2008; Bailer and Haas, 2009; Segura-Cabrera et al., 2013). Figure 5 shows an example of convergent evolution. The human Ephrin-B2 is a cell surface transmembrane ligand of Ephrin receptors (Figure 5A; Qin et al., 2010), and the Glycoprotein G encoded by the Paramixovirus Hendra henipavirus is an envelope component (GO:0019031) that mimics this interaction with Ephrin receptors using an interface similar to the one explored by Ephrin type-A receptors 4 (Figure 5B).
Figure 5. Interaction convergence.

Recombination in RNA viruses
In some cases of RNA virus recombination, the donor
sequence neatly replaces a homologous region of the acceptor
sequence leaving its structure unchanged. This has been
classified as `homologous recombination ' (Lai, 1992) since it
involves not just homologous parental RNAs, but also
crossovers at homologous sites. However, this is not always
the case ; hybrid sequences resulting from aberrant homologous
recombination (when similar viruses exchange sequence without
maintaining strict alignment) and nonhomologous recombination
(recombination between unrelated RNA sequences)
are also commonly observed (Lai, 1992).
Despite producing distinct kinds of hybrid RNAs, as well as
defective interfering (DI) RNAs (Lazzarini et al., 1981), the
different types of recombination appear to be variations on a
common theme. To date, almost all studies on the mechanisms
of recombination in RNA viruses have supported a copy±
choice model, originally proposed in the case of poliovirus
(Cooper et al., 1974) and now well studied in a number of
experimental systems (Duggal et al., 1997; Jarvis & Kirkegaard,
1992; Kirkegaard & Baltimore, 1986; Nagy & Bujarski, 1995,
1998; Nagy et al., 1998; Simon & Nagy, 1996; for a recent
review see Nagy & Simon, 1997). Under this model, hybrid
RNAs are formed when the viral RNA-dependent RNA
polymerase complex switches, mid-replication, from one RNA
molecule to another. This results in homologous recombination
if the replicase continues to copy the new strand precisely
where it left the old one, and aberrant or nonhomologous
recombination if it does not. This template-switching mechanism
is fundamentally different from the enzyme-driven
breakage±rejoining mechanism of homologous recombination
in DNA, not least because it invokes replication as a necessary
component of the process. Finally, Chetverin et al.

Alpha/beta interferons (IFN-α/β) are important aspects of cellular antiviral answers. The end results with the interferons are usually mediated through interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) items, that include healthy proteins together with described actions, such as 2′,5′-oligoadenylate synthetase in addition to numerous others using not known functions (analyzed in reference39). Many research on the antiviral actions associated with IFN-α/β get devoted to the self-consciousness associated with RNA trojan copying; the consequences upon Genetic computer virus reproduction are significantly less well recognized. Hsv simplex virus variety One (HSV-1) duplication can be restricted simply by interferon pretreatment associated with tissues as a result of prevent with the level of immediate-early (For instance) gene transcribing and other results on health proteins activity that are demonstrated in after instances throughout attacked tissue (Two, Twenty five, 40, Thirty two). Inside rats, IFN-α/β are crucial sponsor defense, considering that attenuated HSV-1 mutants tend to be a lot more virulent throughout wildlife lacking interferon receptors (21, 22).
The actual signaling walkway for IFN-α/β is actually well indicated (Twenty) (Fig. A single). Joining associated with interferons on their cell receptor ends in the phosphorylation regarding Janus kinases (JAKs) JAK1 as well as Tyk2 along with the accompanying phosphorylation associated with indication transducers and activators associated with transcribing (STATs) One and a pair of. Aforementioned proteins tend to be translocated to the nucleus, exactly where these are enrolled simply by interferon regulatory factor (IRF) Nine (IRF-9; often known as p48) to form a sophisticated, referred to as ISG issue Three (ISGF3), about interferon-stimulated regulation elements (ISREs) within ISG promoters. Your acetylases p300 along with CREB-binding health proteins (CBP) accompany Numbers One and a couple of and they are almost certainly critical in mediating transcriptional activation.
Components involving ISG induction. The actual pathway activated by IFN-α/β can be shown around the quit facet of the diagram, leading to creation in the complex known as ISGF3 (phosphorylated STATs One and 2 in addition IRF-9).

Recently, recombination has
also been detected in other RNA viruses for which multivalent
vaccines are in use or in trials (Holmes et al., 1999; Suzuki et al.,
1998; Worobey et al., 1999). We think the potential for
recombination to produce new pathogenic hybrid strains, and
the possible impact of such escape recombination, needs to be
carefully considered whenever multivalent live-attenuated
vaccines are used to control RNA viruses. Assumptions that
recombination either does not happen or is unimportant in
RNA viruses have a history of being proved wrong.
In addition to the evidence favouring a role for genetic
exchange in eliminating deleterious alleles, many recombinant
RNA virus strains provide ample indication that recombination
can generate beneficial new variation. In some viruses this new
variation is achieved by borrowing genetic material from their
hosts. One intriguing example of this is bovine viral diarrhoea
virus (BVDV), a pestivirus that recombines with host cellular
protein-coding RNA. As a result of virus±host recombinations,
cytopathogenic BVDVs can develop from non-cytopathogenic
ones and cause a lethal syndrome, mucosal disease, in the hosts
(Meyers et al., 1989). In¯uenza A virus has also been observed
to recombine with cellular RNA, resulting in increased
pathogenicity for the hybrid viruses (Khatchikian et al., 1989).
Recombination between virus and host genetic material
evidently occurs in plant viruses as well, as illustrated by a
luteovirus isolate with 5«-terminal sequence derived from a
chloroplast exon (Mayo & Jolly, 1991) and closteroviruses
which have acquired host cellular protein-coding genes (Dolja
et al., 1994) which are nonessential for replication and virion
production (Peremyslov et al., 1998).
A link between recombination and increased pathogenicity
has also been revealed in cases that do not involve recombination
with host genes.

The Evolution of Protein Interfaces and the Virus–Host Arms Race
In virus–host systems, interacting proteins are constantly losing and regaining their binding sites in order to evade or optimize interspecific PPIs. This process of constant change is known as an “evolutionary arms race” (Franzosa and Xia, 2011; Daugherty and Malik, 2012).
Under an arms race regime, proteins can evolve by offensive or defensive strategies. Host proteins evolve offensively when they are constantly changing as part of an effort to retain or restore their recognition capabilities to bind and neutralize viral factors, which in turn is under recurrent adaptation to evade the host's antagonist actions (Daugherty and Malik, 2012). For example, host immune system proteins in constant interaction with pathogen proteins frequently evolve by an offensive strategy. This scenario is usually found in mammals, whose antiviral proteins are under constant adaptation to recognize their antigens, showing a rapid mode of evolution (Lindblad-Toh et al., 2011). Conversely, defensive strategies are observed when host proteins targeted by viral antagonists undergo mutations to prevent pathogen proteins from binding their interfaces. As a response, this context can favor the fixation of novel mutations on viral interfaces, probably compensating for host evasion (Daugherty and Malik, 2012).
In this intricate virus–host arms race, endogenous and exogenous interfaces show different patterns of evolution. Host interfaces mediating host–host PPIs tend to be less variable than interfaces directly targeted by viral proteins (Franzosa and Xia, 2011). These proteins contain specific residues where small changes can drastically modify protein function and/or structure, and consequently their intraspecific binding affinity (Daugherty and Malik, 2012). This mode of evolution is especially observed in co-evolving host–host interfaces, where mutations can be potentially deleterious, and strong purifying selection acts to maintain the integrity of their binding sites (Franzosa and Xia, 2011; Daugherty and Malik, 2012). However, there are exceptions to this pattern. Taking into account that some endogenous binding sites overlap with exogenous interfaces (Franzosa and Xia, 2011), shared residues of endogenous interfaces can evolve faster due to competition with a viral antagonist (Elde and Malik, 2009).

When these viral proteins bind to receptors on the surface of neighboring cells, cell–cell fusion takes place, leading to syncytia formation . Since the virus is occupying cellular factors that are otherwise utilized by the cell, its replication can alter the host cell´s primary features or even destroy it.

The type 1 interferons are then released and bind to the IFNAR1 and IFNAR2 receptors expressed on the surface of a neighboring cell. Once interferon has bound to its receptors on the neighboring cell, the signaling proteins STAT1 and STAT2 are activated and move to the cell's nucleus. This triggers the expression of interferon-stimulated genes, which code for proteins with antiviral properties. EBOV's V24 protein blocks the production of these antiviral proteins by preventing the STAT1 signaling protein in the neighboring cell from entering the nucleus. The VP35 protein directly inhibits the production of interferon-beta. By inhibiting these immune responses, EBOV may quickly spread throughout the body.

Protein–Protein Interactions in Virus–Host Systems
- Department of Life Sciences, Centre for Integrative Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
To study virus–host protein interactions, knowledge about viral and host protein architectures and repertoires, their particular evolutionary mechanisms, and information on relevant sources of biological data is essential. The purpose of this review article is to provide a thorough overview about these aspects. Protein domains are basic units defining protein interactions, and the uniqueness of viral domain repertoires, their mode of evolution, and their roles during viral infection make viruses interesting models of study. Mutations at protein interfaces can reduce or increase their binding affinities by changing protein electrostatics and structural properties. During the course of a viral infection, both pathogen and cellular proteins are constantly competing for binding partners. Endogenous interfaces mediating intraspecific interactions—viral–viral or host–host interactions—are constantly targeted and inhibited by exogenous interfaces mediating viral–host interactions. From a biomedical perspective, blocking such interactions is the main mechanism underlying antiviral therapies. Some proteins are able to bind multiple partners, and their modes of interaction define how fast these “hub proteins” evolve. “Party hubs” have multiple interfaces; they establish simultaneous/stable (domain–domain) interactions, and tend to evolve slowly. On the other hand, “date hubs” have few interfaces; they establish transient/weak (domain–motif) interactions by means of short linear peptides (15 or fewer residues), and can evolve faster. Viral infections are mediated by several protein–protein interactions (PPIs), which can be represented as networks (protein interaction networks, PINs), with proteins being depicted as nodes, and their interactions as edges. It has been suggested that viral proteins tend to establish interactions with more central and highly connected host proteins. In an evolutionary arms race, viral and host proteins are constantly changing their interface residues, either to evade or to optimize their binding capabilities. Apart from gaining and losing interactions via rewiring mechanisms, virus–host PINs also evolve via gene duplication (paralogy); conservation (orthology); horizontal gene transfer (HGT) (xenology); and molecular mimicry (convergence). The last sections of this review focus on PPI experimental approaches and their limitations, and provide an overview of sources of biomolecular data for studying virus–host protein interactions.

Thus, we hypothesize that NSs function(s can be abolished by truncation of specific domains, and co-expression of nonfunctional NSs with intact NSs will result in the attenuation of NSs function by dominant-negative effect. Unexpectedly, we found that RVFV NSs truncated at aa. 6-30, 31-55, 56-80, 81-105, 106-130, 131-155, 156-180, 181-205, 206-230, 231-248 or 249-265 lack functions of IFN-β mRNA synthesis inhibition and degradation of PKR. Truncated NSs were less stable in infected cells, while nuclear localization was inhibited in NSs lacking either of aa.81-105, 106-130, 131-155, 156-180, 181-205, 206-230 or 231-248. Furthermore, none of truncated NSs had exhibited significant dominant-negative functions for NSs-mediated IFN-β suppression or PKR degradation upon co-expression in cells infected with RVFV. We also found that any of truncated NSs except for intact NSs does not interact with RVFV NSs even in the presence of intact C-terminus self-association domain. Our results suggest that conformational integrity of NSs is important for the stability, cellular localization and biological functions of RVFV NSs, and the co-expression of truncated NSs does not exhibit dominant-negative phenotype.
Perkus, Marion E.; Piccini, Antonia; Lipinskas, Bernard R.; Paoletti, Enzo
The coding sequences for the hepatitis B virus surface antigen, the herpes simplex virus glycoprotein D, and the influenza virus hemagglutinin were inserted into a single vaccinia virus genome. Rabbits inoculated intravenously or intradermally with this polyvalent vaccinia virus recombinant produced antibodies reactive to all three authentic foreign antigens. In addition, the feasibility of multiple rounds of vaccination with recombinant vaccinia virus was demonstrated.
Full Text Available Viruses are known to be abundant, ubiquitous, and to play a very important role in the health and evolution of life organisms. However, most biologists have considered them as entities separate from the realm of life and acting merely as mechanical artifacts that can exchange genes between different organisms.

A special hormone called interferon is produced by the body when viruses are present, and this stops the viruses from reproducing by killing the infected cell and its close neighbours. Inside cells, there are enzymes that destroy the RNA of viruses. This is called RNA interference. Some blood cells engulf and destroy other virus infected cells.
Adaptive immunity of animals
Specific immunity to viruses develops over time and white blood cells called lymphocytes play a central role. Lymphocytes retain a "memory" of virus infections and produce many special molecules called antibodies. These antibodies attach to viruses and stop the virus from infecting cells. Antibodies are highly selective and attack only one type of virus. The body makes many different antibodies, especially during the initial infection, however, after the infection subsides, some antibodies remain and continue to be produced, often giving the host life-long immunity to the virus.
Plants have elaborate and effective defence mechanisms against viruses. One of the most effective is the presence of so-called resistance (R) genes. Each R gene confers resistance to a particular virus by triggering localised areas of cell death around the infected cell, which can often be seen with the unaided eye as large spots. This stops the infection from spreading. RNA interference is also an effective defence in plants. When they are infected, plants often produce natural disinfectants which kill viruses, such as salicylic acid, nitric oxide and reactive oxygen molecules.
Resistance to bacteriophages
The major way bacteria defend themselves from bacteriophages is by producing enzymes which destroy foreign DNA. These enzymes, called restriction endonucleases, cut up the viral DNA that bacteriophages inject into bacterial cells.
Vaccination is a way of preventing diseases caused by viruses. Vaccines simulate a natural infection and its associated immune response, but do not cause the disease. Their use has resulted in a dramatic decline in illness and death caused by infections such as polio, measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccines are available to prevent over thirteen viral infections of humans and more are used to prevent viral infections of animals. Vaccines may consist of either live or killed viruses. Live vaccines contain weakened forms of the virus, but these vaccines can be dangerous when given to people with weak immunity. In these people, the weakened virus can cause the original disease.

Faulty interfering (DI) genomes are characterised by their capability to hinder the replication from the virus that these were derived, and other compatible infections genetically. studies. [4,9,10] or . Within a portion many different break factors have been noticed, in order that many different DI RNA sequences may occur from an individual portion simply. Following deletions can arise also. In a planning of influenza A DI infections a lot more than 50 Pifithrin-alpha enzyme inhibitor different DI RNAs had been Pifithrin-alpha enzyme inhibitor discovered . DI infections are defective as the removed genome lacks an important gene necessary for replication. To be able to replicate, DI infections require assistance from the infectious trojan from which these were derived, or a suitable related trojan genetically, to supply the lacking gene products. That is known as a helper trojan. DI trojan production is normally optimal in the presence Pifithrin-alpha enzyme inhibitor of a large amount of helper disease but as the DI disease replicates it reduces the yield of infectious helper disease. The reduction in helper trojan arises as the smaller sized DI genome is normally replicated considerably faster than the bigger parental genome, Pifithrin-alpha enzyme inhibitor in order that even more DI genomes are synthesised in device time before DI genome predominates. This gives two advantages of the DI genome; stochastically DI genomes are after that able to contend better for essential item(s) synthesised in limited quantities with the infectious helper trojan or the web host cell, and second the abundant DI genomes will be packed into new trojan particles. Due to the dependence from the DI trojan on helper trojan to provide the fundamental protein DI and helper trojan Mouse monoclonal antibody to Tubulin beta. Microtubules are cylindrical tubes of 20-25 nm in diameter. They are composed of protofilamentswhich are in turn composed of alpha- and beta-tubulin polymers. Each microtubule is polarized,at one end alpha-subunits are exposed (-) and at the other beta-subunits are exposed (+).Microtubules act as a scaffold to determine cell shape, and provide a backbone for cellorganelles and vesicles to move on, a process that requires motor proteins.

Antiviral prescription drugs in many cases are nucleoside analogues (pretend DNA setting up-blocks), which viruses mistakenly incorporate into their genomes during replication. The life-cycle of your virus is then halted as the freshly synthesised DNA is inactive. It is because these analogues absence the hydroxyl teams, which, together with phosphorus atoms, hyperlink together to kind the sturdy "backbone" with the DNA molecule. This known as DNA chain termination.
Some viruses can result in lifelong or chronic bacterial infections, where by the viruses go on to replicate in your body despite the host's defence mechanisms. This really is popular in hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infections.
Record the file locale of each and every offending entry prior to deciding to take out it. You will need to locate these information afterwards to delete them.
a. Any of various submicroscopic brokers that infect residing organisms, often producing illness, and that include a single or double strand of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Not able to copy with out a host mobile, viruses are usually not considered living organisms.
wikiHow Contributor Will not go into any personal accounts or legal paperwork that require passwords, which include social media marketing internet sites!
HitmanPro is definitely an anti-virus system that describes alone like a next viewpoint scanner that needs to be utilized at the side of A further anti-virus software that you could already have installed. If malware slips previous your anti-virus software, HitmanPro will then phase in to detect it.
Attachment could be the intermolecular binding among viral capsid proteins and receptors to the outer membrane of the host mobile. The specificity of binding decides the host species and mobile varieties which have been receptive to viral an infection. By way of example, HIV infects only human T cells, as the surface protein interacts with CD4 and chemokine receptors to the surface area with the T mobile alone.
Has your Laptop or computer been contaminated by a virus? Viruses and various malware can pose a significant security hazard towards your knowledge and private information and facts, and may have a drastic impact on your Laptop's performance.
RNA interference is an important innate defence towards viruses. Lots of viruses Possess a replication tactic that will involve double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). When this kind of virus infects a mobile, it releases its RNA molecule or molecules, which instantly bind to the protein elaborate identified as a dicer that cuts the RNA into smaller sized items.

Slicing and dicing viruses: antiviral RNA interference in mammalsMore about Open Access at the Crick
Authors listPierre V Maillard Annemarthe G van der Veen Enzo Poirier Caetano Reis e Sousa
To protect against the harmful consequences of viral infections, organisms are equipped with sophisticated antiviral mechanisms, including cell-intrinsic means to restrict viral replication and propagation. Plant and invertebrate cells utilise mostly RNA interference (RNAi), an RNA-based mechanism, for cell-intrinsic immunity to viruses while vertebrates rely on the protein-based interferon (IFN)-driven innate immune system for the same purpose. The RNAi machinery is conserved in vertebrate cells, yet whether antiviral RNAi is still active in mammals and functionally relevant to mammalian antiviral defence is intensely debated. Here, we discuss cellular and viral factors that impact on antiviral RNAi and the contexts in which this system might be at play in mammalian resistance to viral infection.
Journal EMBO Journal
Issue number 8

(C) Superposition of the interologs: both PPIs are found in distinct but homologous systems.
HGT is a process of genome recombination by means of which some viruses acquire one or more genes from non-parental organisms, a mechanism of evolution especially observed among large DNA viruses, which usually acquire new genes from other viruses, bacteria, or from their hosts (Shackelton and Holmes, 2004). Once a viral genome has incorporated a new gene, the protein product can be optimized and integrated into its virus–host network (Daugherty and Malik, 2012). Large dsDNA viruses, such as, poxviruses and herpesviruses, have been shown to be remarkably prone to acquire and domesticate exogenous genes within several functional categories (Raftery et al., 2000; Hughes and Friedman, 2005). Figure 4B shows an interaction between a human CDK6 and a Cyclin encoded by the Human Herpesvirus 8. This interaction is part of an immune system process (GO:0006955), and takes place in the extracellular region (GO:0005576). The viral cyclin (vCyclin) was probably acquired by HGT, and is capable of modulating cellular growth (GO:0005125) in similar ways to cellular cyclins D (Figure 4; Godden-Kent et al., 1997).
Figure 4. A viral PPI interaction derived from HGT. (A) In host protein networks, CDK6 (gray protein) originally establishes interaction with human Cyclin-A/CCNT1 (blue protein, PDB 3MI9). (B) Interestingly, a viral cyclin encoded by HHV-8, probably acquired by HGT (red protein, PDB 1G3N), is also able to establish similar interactions. (C) As both proteins share the same domain (Cyclin_N; PF00134), the structural superposition between the human cyclin (A) and its viral cognate (B) reveals their folding and binding similarities.
Gene duplication (paralogy) is another usual mechanism of protein network evolution, and duplicated genes are common in some viral genomes. After a duplication event, each paralog can undergo independent mutations, giving rise to new biological functions (Barabasi and Oltvai, 2004; Ratmann et al., 2009).

Submitted to: Avian Pathology
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: January 3, 2012
Publication Date: June 18, 2012
Citation: Dunn, J.R., Silva, R.F., Lee, L.F., Witter, R.L. 2012. Competition between two virulent Marek's disease virus strains in vivo. Avian Pathology. 41(3):267-275. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2012.677804. Interpretive Summary: Marek's disease virus (MDV), an avian herpesvirus that can cause cancer-like disease in chicken, is present within most poultry houses because vaccines don't prevent birds from shedding the virus. As birds become infected with multiple viruses a competition likely occurs within each bird that allows a more virulent (evolved) virus to spread within the flock. This study demonstrated that when birds were infected with two Marek's disease viruses at the same time, that one virus tended to consistently out-compete the other (it was consistently present in higher amounts). Further work is needed to identify what factors lead to the ability of one virus to out-compete another virus.
Technical Abstract: Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of multiple strains of Marek’s disease virus simultaneously circulating within poultry flocks, leading to the assumption that individual birds are repeatedly exposed to a variety of virus strains in their lifetime. Virus competition within individual birds may be an important factor that influences the outcome of coinfection under field conditions, including the potential outcome of emergence or evolution of more virulent strains. A series of experiments were designed to evaluate virus competition within chickens following simultaneous challenge with two fully virulent S1 MDV strains, using either similar (rMd5 and rMd5//38CVI) or dissimilar (JM/102W and rMd5//38CVI) virus pairs. Bursa of Fabricius, feather follicle epithelium, spleen, and tumor samples were collected at multiple time points to determine the frequency and distribution of each virus present by using pyrosequencing, immunohistochemistry and virus isolation. In the similar pair, rMd5 appeared to have a competitive advantage over rMd5//38CVI, which in turn had a competitive advantage over the less virulent JM/102W in the dissimilar virus pair.

Dominance of one strain over the other was not absolute for either virus pair, as the subordinate virus was rarely eliminated. Interestingly, competition between two viruses with either pair rarely ended in a draw. Further work is needed to identify factors that influence virus-specific dominance to better understand what characteristics favor emergence of one strain in chicken populations at the expense of other strains.

The combination of pure red cell aplasia due to IFN-α and haemolytic anaemia due to ribavirin was suggested to have accounted for this possible interaction. There was an increased incidence of adverse skin reactions, mostly eczema, malar erythema, and lichenoid eruptions, in 33 patients who received combination of IFN-α with ribavirin compared with 35 patients treated with IFN-α alone .
In a clinical trial of a combination of telbivudine 600 mg daily with subcutaneous pegylated IFN-α2a, 180 micrograms once weekly for chronic hepatitis B, there was an increased risk of peripheral neuropathy. The manufacturers state that the combination of Pegasys with telbivudine is contraindicated .
In 13 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the combination of IFN-α2a (27 MIU/week) and thalidomide produced severe neurological toxicity in four patients, an incidence that was considered to be far greater than would be expected with either drug alone .
Both IFN-α [46,47,48,49] and IFN-β  reduce theophylline clearance.
Many viruses have developed mechanisms of resistance to interferons or block their actions, including adenoviruses, hepatitis C, influenza and parainfluenza viruses, Japanese encephalitis virus, and paramyxoviruses [51,52].
Experience in coronavirus infections other than COVID-19
In vitro studies
IFN-β1a was a potent inhibitor of SARS-CoV-1 in cell culture when applied before or 1 hour after inoculation, reducing viral replication by 2 log units .
Wild-type mice develop a mild bronchiolitis when infected with SARS-CoV-1 (which causes SARS), but Stat1 –/– mice, who lack the STAT pathway, have increased lung damage, continued viral replication, and damage to other organs .
In a retrospective survey of 51 patients with MERS-CoV infection, 23 of whom were treated with IFN-β, survival was more likely in the patients treated with IFN-β. It is likely that it was given subcutaneously. As treatments were not allocated randomly, the result is not helpful in determining the possible therapeutic benefit of IFN-β .

It’s not just which proteins are there; it’s also about which proteins are most abundant and events that can trigger differences in protein abundance
- Protein binding = when a protein attaches itself to another protein (or some other organic chemical)
- Protein interactions = any time two proteins bind to each other and cause something else to happen (which is all the time)
- Interactome = a map of protein interactions
Tl;dr: Human cells have a protein called IFI-16 that can detect viral DNA and tell immune cells to kill the infected cell. But viruses also have a protein that can render IFI-16 mute.

Compared to the relatively well-conserved processes found in cellular organisms, viruses demonstrate huge variations in terms of genomic composition, patterns of evolution, and protein function. While studying protein–protein interactions (PPIs) in virus–host systems, these variations on the pathogen side must be considered. A large proportion of the PPIs are mediated by domain–domain interactions (DDIs), and viruses belonging to different Baltimore groups have specific domain repertoires, providing different strategies and mechanisms of molecular recognition to accomplish their replication cycle (Zheng et al., 2014). In DDIs, molecular recognition is performed via amino acid residues located at interfaces of interaction. Under homeostatic conditions, host proteins interact with each other via (endogenous) interfaces that are also sometimes explored by viruses (exogenous interfaces), leading to competition for such molecular resources between viruses and hosts (Franzosa and Xia, 2011). Protein recognition events can occur as stable or transient interactions, and some proteins can establish interactions with multiple partners, either simultaneously (party hubs), or at different times (date hubs; Han et al., 2004). Such patterns of interaction can be studied in the context of the overall protein interaction network (PIN), in which each node shows particular properties (e.g., connectivity, centrality, etc.; Gursoy et al., 2008).
In terms of evolution, virus and host PPIs often evolve under a regime of arms race. In this phenomenon, one of the partners undergoes mutations that can in turn promote the fixation of mutations in its counterpart, causing both proteins to change over time in a way that retains their mutual recognition capabilities (Daugherty and Malik, 2012). Other common mechanisms of evolution in virus–host systems involve the acquisition of new proteins and interactions via gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and convergence (Alcami, 2003; Koonin et al., 2006; Garamszegi et al., 2013).
Protein interaction data are usually obtained using strategies such as, yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) and affinity-purification mass spectrometry (AP-MS), which present specific advantages and disadvantages (Gavin et al., 2006; Gingras et al., 2007). Different kinds of proteomic data are gathered in multiple independent databases, which provide researchers with information on protein classification, domains, interactions, GO terms, etc.

remain a public health concern worldwide due to their emerging and re-emerging nature . Due to lack of therapeutics against majority of viruses, there is always a need to develop more effective antiviral agents . Lately, RNA interference (RNAi) has emerged as a potential therapeutic tool for targeting human viruses. RNAi or gene silencing is a process by which sequence-specific degradation of mRNA takes place . In this process, long dsRNA precursors are chopped into shorter (19–23 resides) units by a ribonuclease enzyme called dicer. These short interfering RNAs (siRNAs) possess two terminal nucleotide 3′ overhangs. After that a ribonucleoprotein machinery called RNA induced silencing complex (RISC) incorporates one of the siRNA strands and cleaves the complementary target mRNA using ATP .
Researchers have extensively used RNAi process to target a number of viral genes to suppress their expression [5, 6]. siRNAs targeting different regions of the HIV genome in infected cells showed promising results in inhibiting viral replication [7, 8]. Also, siRNAs targeting the influenza virus nucleocapsid and RNA transcriptase genes restricted its transcription and replication [9, 10]. Similarly, siRNAs directed against the Hepatitis B virus surface regions prevented the virus production . siRNAs employed against SARS-CoV envelope and genes were able to effectively block their expression . In another study, siRNAs targeting Dengue virus genes were able to impede the viral infection . In addition, siRNAs have been shown to curb many other viruses like Human papillomavirus (HPV) , West Nile virus (WNV)  etc.
RNAi methodology has many desirable features to use as antiviral agents. It can target diverse types of viral genomes, whether it be double/single stranded DNA or RNA, which make it a suitable candidate for broad-spectrum antiviral therapy . Also, siRNA aims at small length of the target mRNA instead of a functional domain of a protein, therefore, even a small viral genome can lend many targetable regions . Further, many siRNAs may be expressed simultaneously to increase inhibition in a coordinated manner . They are also harnessed to degrade mRNAs which generate disease causing proteins . siRNA based drugs have also entered the clinical trials for various human diseases e.g.

The generation of dsRNA is a pivotal part of the replication process for many ssRNA viruses and longer stretches of dsRNA are key indicators of viral invasion to a cell . In the present study, the detection of the replicative intermediary cRNA early in the gills signals its presence. Cells detect viral RNA and proteins via pathogen associated molecular pattern (PAMP) receptors, which in turn stimulate interferons and the antiviral response ,. In this study, the more rapid systemic response induced by LVI might have provided a sufficient level of protection in a higher number of hosts, preventing this strain from reaching the damaging higher viral loads observed for HVI. In the latter half of the trial the immune genes of the HVI infected fish were up-regulated more in comparison to those of the LVI infected fish. Interferon responses to viral infection are usually transient and self-limited to avoid a prolonged anti-viral state which in itself can be detrimental to the host and interfere with haematopoiesis ,. Indeed, the vast induction of cytokines and chemokines, generating a “cytokine storm” and overwhelming inflammatory responses, have been linked to highly pathogenic influenza virus pathogenesis ,,. The over-activation of IFNβ and tumour necrosis factor–α (TNFα) creates a powerful pro-inflammatory response compared to that of low pathogenic influenza viruses, tipping the balance of the response towards inflammation, contributing to tissue damage . The possibility that the increased mortality caused by HVI, which coincided with high expression of immune markers was caused by similar immune mechanisms should not be excluded. This study only focussed on a very small aspect of the immune response, therefore a more in-depth analysis of a greater number of immune response genes in immersion challenged fish would be advantageous. What is clear from the present study, the immune response was sufficient to limit the infection by LVI while ineffectual at preventing HVI instigating a progressive infection causing an eventual fatal outcome.
RNA viruses have evolved diverse strategies to counteract and evade the host immune system. The influenza virus NS1 protein for example, is the primary antagonist of the innate immune response and remarkably effects many stages of the interferon response . Two ISAV proteins, including the putative NS protein, have been linked to the antagonism of the IFN system ,, but it was not possible to relate these functions specifically here.

demonstrating that type I interferon activity is required for virus-induced granulocyte death.
"This link to the interferon is really interesting," said Jonathan McCullers
of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, who was not involved in the study. "That, to me, is the important part of the paper."
It's not yet clear if this mechanism will underlie other cases of bacterial superinfection after viral disease, Czuprynski told The Scientist, but, because type I interferon activation is a generalized body response to viral infection, "this might be something that happens with other viral agents as well," he said.
"All agents causing high interferon type I levels are in our opinion likely to cause such effects and facilitate superinfection," Navarini told The Scientist
in an Email.
According to McCullers, "it's going to take a little work to generalize it to human viruses. Influenza, for example, causes an increase in human granulocyte number and so probably does not encourage bacterial infection through this mechanism, but "it might be a very reasonable model for HIV," McCullers told The Scientist
. Researchers will "have to apply it to each virus in turn and see if it fits."
Melissa Lee Phillips
Links within this article:
C. Holding, "Evolution of innate immunity," The Scientist
, July 8, 2004.
J.F. Wilson, "Renewing the Fight Against Bacteria," The Scientist
, March 4, 2002.
Navarini et al., "Increased susceptibility to bacterial superinfection as a consequence of innate antiviral responses," PNAS
, published online October 9, 2006.
L. Malmgaard et al., "Promotion of alpha/beta interferon induction during in vivo viral infection through alpha/beta interferon receptor/STAT1 system-dependent and -independent pathwaysm," Journal of Virology
, May 2002.
C.Q. Choi, "How viruses interfere with interferon," The Scientist
, October 1, 2006.

Some biological implications of the quasispecies nature of RNA viruses.
|1.||Viral genomes are collections of mutant genomes termed mutant spectra or mutant clouds. Mutant clouds may include phenotypic variants adequate to respond to selective constraints (antibody- and cytotoxic T cell-escape mutants, inhibitor- or mutagen-resistant mutants; cell tropism and host-range mutants, etc.). The phenotypic repertoire of a viral quasispecies can contribute to viral persistence, pathogenesis and to the limited efficacy of treatments designed to limit viral replication.|
|2.||Viral quasispecies can include memory genomes as minority components of their mutant spectra. Memory provides an adaptive advantage to viral populations.|
|3.||Mutant spectra are not merely collections of mutant viruses acting independently. Positive interactions (of complementation) or negative interactions (of interference) can be established within mutant spectra. Thus viral quasispecies act as a unit of selection and cannot be accurately described by classical Wright-Fisher formulations of population genetics.|
|4.||The understanding of quasispecies dynamics has helped defining protocols for preventive and therapeutic designs (vaccines to control viral quasispecies must be multivalent, antiviral agents must be sued in combination) and has impelled new antiviral strategies such as lethal mutagenesis (virus extinction by excess mutations).|

PLoS Pathog 9(2): e1003164. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003164
Editor: Michael S. Diamond, Washington University School of Medicine, United States of America
Received: July 13, 2012; Accepted: December 14, 2012; Published: February 7, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Runckel et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work and JDR are supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institution. CR was supported by the Genentech Fellowship at UCSF. RA is supported by grants from the NIAID (R01 AI36178 and AI40085). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Recombination in RNA viruses is a source of genetic diversity and rapid evolutionary change and may result in the emergence of new strains by facilitating shifts in cell tropism, antigen profile and pathogenicity. The mechanism of RNA virus recombination can proceed through re-assortment of genome segments, as is the case for the Influenza A virus, or through the generation of chimeric viral genomes during replication for non-segmented viruses. This recombination is frequent in the wild with different recombinant genotypes rising to dominance and declining over a timescale of only a few years . Sequencing of large numbers of viral isolates has revealed instances of intra-species recombination in many human-infecting RNA viruses with major public health implications, including norovirus , astrovirus , flavivirus  and at least eight species of picornavirus –. Rare inter-species recombinants, such as the enteroviruses HEV90  and HEV109 , have also been described.
Viral recombination not only impacts public health by the evolution of new viral strains, but may also undermine live-attenuated vaccines by producing a pathogenic strain derived from the attenuated strains. The oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is the most famous example, where three attenuated serotypes of poliovirus are typically administered simultaneously.

When you think about viruses, you might wonder how they infect, how they spread, and how they kill. These questions are of natural interest—you, after all, could play host to a grand variety of lethal viruses. But do remember: it’s not all about you.
A virus’ world contains not just potential hosts, but other viruses. It has competition. This simple fact is often ignored but it has profound implications. In a new study, Lisa Bono from the University of North Carolina has shown that competition between viruses can drive them to spill over into new hosts, imperilling creatures that they never used to infect.
Earlier this year, a 17-year-old French woman arrived at her ophthalmologist with pain and redness in her left eye. She had been using tap water to dilute the cleaning solution for her contact lenses, and even though they were meant to be replaced every month, she would wear them for three. As a result, the fluid in her contact lens case had become contaminated with three species of bacteria, an amoeba called Acanthamoeba polyphaga that can caused inflamed eyes.
It was carrying two species of bacteria, and a giant virus that no one had seen before—they called it Lentille virus. Inside that, they found a virophage—an virus that can only reproduce in cells infected by other viruses—which they called Sputnik 2. And in both Lentille virus and Sputnik 2, they found even smaller genetic parasites – tiny chunks of DNA that can hop around the genomes of the virus, and stow away inside the virophage. They called these transpovirons.
If flu viruses have favoured hook-up spots, then pig pens would be high on the list. Their airways contain molecules that both bird flu viruses and mammalian flu viruses can latch onto. This means that a wide range of flu strains can infect pigs, and if two viruses infect the same cell, they can shuffle their genes to create fresh combinations.
This process is called reassortment. In 2009, it created a strain of flu that leapt from pigs to humans, triggering a global pandemic. If we needed proof that pigs are “mixing vessels” for new and dangerous viruses, the pandemic was it.
Now, scientists have found a new strain of flu in Korean pigs that remphasises the threat.

A potentially better way to make flu virus vaccines A team of Princeton University scientists may have found an easier way to make a vaccine against the flu virus. Though theoretical, the task points to the critical importance of what has been a poorly appreciated aspect of the conversation between a virus and the ones naturally produced protective proteins called antibodies that fight infection. By manipulating this multi-stage interactive process – – known as antibody interference – – to advantage, the scientists believe it could be possible to design better vaccines than exist today levitra . The findings are described in the May 11 on-line edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. We’ve proposed that antibody interference plays a major role in determining the effectiveness of the antibody response to a viral an infection, said Ned Wingreen, a professor of molecular biology and a member of the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics. And we believe that in order to get a more powerful vaccine, folks are going to desire one that minimizes this interference. Various other authors on the paper consist of Simon Levin, the George M. Moffett Professor of Biology, and Wilfred Ndifon, a graduate college student in Levin’s laboratory and first writer on the paper. When a virus like influenza episodes a human, the body mounts a defense, generating antibodies custom-designed to add themselves to the virus, blocking it from action and efficiently neutralizing its harmful effects on the body. Analyzing data about viral structure, antibody types and the reactions between them made by virology laboratories over the national country, Ndifon noticed a perplexing pattern. He found that antibodies had been better at protecting against a somewhat different virus often, a close cousin, than against the virus that spurred their creation. That is known as cross-reactivity. A closer look, using techniques that combine biophysics and processing, suggested that a phenomenon known as antibody interference was at play. It arises when a virus prompts the creation of multiple types of antibodies. During a viral assault, what then transpires can be that antibodies vie with one another to defend the body and sometimes masses each other out as they try to connect themselves to the surface of the virus.

Viral infection of leukocytes or respiratory epithelium activates a variety of pattern recognition-receptors (PRR), such as the TLRs or the NOD receptors that induce the production of IRF3, NFκB, and other cell activation pathways (26
). Virally induced secretion of IFN-β (largely mediated through IRF3) is especially important because this molecule acts in a paracrine fashion on neighboring cells to up-regulate a group of key antiviral proteins (such as OAS1, MX1, and PKR) that prevent subsequent infection and spread of the virus.
Most viruses have developed sophisticated (and different) mechanisms to try to prevent IRF3/IFN pathway activation (27
). VSV, for example, encodes a Matrix protein that inhibits host cell gene expression by targeting a nucleoporin and blocking nuclear export (28
). Hence, any mRNAs induced by activation of the IRF pathway after viral replication is initiated will not lead to production of IFN or its downstream antiviral effector genes. The NS1 protein of H1N1 influenza virus has also been implicated in a number of regulatory functions during influenza virus infection, including binding of the poly(A) tails of mRNAs (to inhibit their nuclear export) (29
), inhibiting host mRNA polyadenylation, contributing to the virus-induced shutoff of host protein synthesis (31
), and inhibiting pre-mRNA splicing (29
). In addition, binding of NS1 to dsRNA prevents in vitro
activation of PKR (35
Given this ability of IRF3/IFN to prevent viral infection, activation of this pathway as a potentially “antigen-independent” way of controlling disease has been investigated. As early as the 1960s, type I IFNs were reported to be antivirals (36
). Early reports of success using nasal spray preparations of IFN-α by Russian drug companies for prophylaxis and treatment of influenza attracted the interest of Western scientists into this arena (37
). Subsequent studies were conducted that found that the reported beneficial effects were minimal in relationship to the considerable amount of side effects associated with the treatment (38
).

In comparison, the choice RNA helicase retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I) will not seem to be inhibited 21102-95-4 manufacture by V proteins (Childs et al. 2007). V proteins is considered to also become a decoy substrate for kinases that activate IFN regulatory aspect 3 (Lu et al., 2008). To get these V features, a recombinant SV5 that encodes a truncated V proteins lacking the extremely conserved cys-rich domains is a powerful activator of IFN-beta and proinflammatory cyotokine synthesis (He et al., 2002). Another major factor adding to limited activation of mobile responses may be the capability of SV5 to regulate amounts and types of viral RNA produced during replication. That is noticeable from our discovering that an SV5 mutant with substitutions in the genomic promoter overexpresses viral RNA and in addition induces IFN and cytokines through RIG-I pathways, despite the fact that this mutant expresses an operating V proteins (Manuse and Parks, 2009). Likewise, potent antiviral replies are induced 21102-95-4 manufacture by an SV5 P/V mutant which overexpresses viral RNA (Wansley and Parks, 2002), but significantly, appearance from the WT P subunit from the viral polymerase restores regular degrees of viral gene appearance and reduces web host cell replies (Dillon and Parks, 2007). Jointly, these data support a model whereby 21102-95-4 manufacture SV5 an infection Th does not activate antiviral replies during a sturdy replication routine, except under circumstances where V proteins is faulty or when synthesis of viral RNA elements is elevated more than a threshold. This model boosts the issue of whether SV5 would be an unhealthy inducer of antiviral replies in cells that feeling trojan by systems that are 3rd party of disease replication. Dendritic cells (DCs) perform a critical part in sensing viral attacks to activate both innate and adaptive immune system responses. Two main DC subsets can be found within human being peripheral bloodstream (Shortman and Liu, 2002): myeloid dendritic cells (mDCs) and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs).

Synthesis of type C virus, albeit at lower levels, was still observed at uv doses beyond those required to prevent cell killing
Holm, Christian K; Rahbek, Stine H; Gad, Hans Henrik; Bak, Rasmus O; Jakobsen, Martin R; Jiang, Zhaozaho; Hansen, Anne Louise; Jensen, Simon K; Sun, Chenglong; Thomsen, Martin K; Laustsen, Anders; Nielsen, Camilla G; Severinsen, Kasper; Xiong, Yingluo; Burdette, Dara L; Hornung, Veit; Lebbink, Robert Jan; Duch, Mogens; Fitzgerald, Katherine A; Bahrami, Shervin; Mikkelsen, Jakob Giehm; Hartmann, Rune; Paludan, Søren R
Stimulator of interferon genes (STING) is known be involved in control of DNA viruses but has an unexplored role in control of RNA viruses. During infection with DNA viruses STING is activated downstream of cGAMP synthase (cGAS) to induce type I interferon. Here we identify a STING-dependent, cGAS-independent pathway important for full interferon production and antiviral control of enveloped RNA viruses, including influenza A virus (IAV). Further, IAV interacts with STING through its conserved hemagglutinin fusion peptide (FP). Interestingly, FP antagonizes interferon production induced by membrane fusion or IAV but not by cGAMP or DNA. Similar to the enveloped RNA viruses, membrane fusion stimulates interferon production in a STING-dependent but cGAS-independent manner. Abolishment of this pathway led to reduced interferon production and impaired control of enveloped RNA viruses. Thus, enveloped RNA viruses stimulate a cGAS-independent STING pathway, which is targeted by IAV.
Rensen, Elena Ilka; Mochizuki, Tomohiro; Quemin, Emmanuelle; Schouten, S.; Krupovic, Mart; Prangishvili, David
Viruses package their genetic material in diverse ways. Most known strategies include encapsulation of nucleic acids into spherical or filamentous virions with icosahedral or helical symmetry, respectively. Filamentous viruses with dsDNA genomes are currently associated exclusively with Archaea.
Hampar, B.

(A) In physiological conditions the cell surface Ephrin (gray protein) binds its Ephrin type-A receptor 4 (blue protein, PDB 3GXU). (B) However, during infections of the Paramixovirus Hendra henipavirus, the Ephrin interface is also used by the viral Glycoprotein G, which by convergence evolved its binding capacity (red protein, PDB 2VSK). (C) As shown in the superposition, Ephrin type-A receptor 4 and the viral Glycoprotein G can compete for the same interface on the Ephrin surface.
Protein Interaction Data: Experimental Approaches and Limitations
Among the experimental techniques applied to identify virus–host protein interactions, Y2H and AP-MS are the most extensively used, together contributing to more than 90% of the information available in public databases (Guirimand et al., 2014), with the remaining data being obtained by GST-pull-down, luminescence, protease assay, surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and other techniques.
Y2H is efficient at detecting weak/transient domain–motif interactions (Gavin et al., 2006), however, one drawback is that it does not provide precise information about the domains involved in the interactions (Riley et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2006; Segura-Cabrera et al., 2013). Another disadvantage of Y2H screens is that PPI detection takes place within the nucleus. As some proteins are not naturally found in this cellular compartment, they are usually not identified as interactors, resulting in a bias that increases the proportion of false negatives (Von Mering et al., 2002). Additionally, a large number of entries in some databases describe binary interactions that are not physiologically feasible, i.e., even though two proteins are biochemically able to interact, if they do not share the same temporal and spatial compartment in a given biological process, their physical contact would not happen in natural conditions (Russell and Aloy, 2008).
AP-MS works in a different way. In these assays, proteins of interest (baits) are tagged with a recombinant fusion tag, which is then used to purify baits and their respective interacting partners (preys).

Template jumping during
replication in viruses infecting cats has produced, on multiple
occasions, the pathogenic strains known as feline infectious
peritonitis viruses (FIPVs) by altering asymptomatic feline
enteric coronaviruses, differing from them only by deletions of
around 100 bp in predictable locations (Vennema et al., 1998).
Another coronavirus, feline coronavirus (FCoV) type II,
appears to be a homologous (or aberrant homologous)
recombinant of FCoV type I and canine coronavirus
(Herrewegh et al., 1995). Like FIPVs, FCoV type II viruses may
have arisen on different occasions from separate recombination
events (Motokawa et al., 1996).
Experimental studies provide further signs of the ability of
recombination to generate useful, new variation. In one
particularly striking display of this, MS2 phage mutants lacking
the sequence for important stem-and-loop secondary structures
repeatedly reconstructed them via nonhomologous recombination
(Olsthoorn & van Duin, 1996).
Constraints on recombination
Recombination clearly plays a significant role in the
evolution of RNA viruses by generating genetic variation, by
reducing mutational load, and by producing new viruses. We
expect that with current advances in sequencing and sequence
analysis many more examples of hybrid viruses, produced by
recombination between different strains, will soon be found.
However, it is clearly not the case that all RNA viruses are
equally prone to recombination. It has still not been detected in
several viruses despite strenuous searches (e.g. Bilsel et al.,
1990), although some ± not otherwise known to recombine ±
nevertheless produce DI RNAs. Amongst those known to
produce hybrids, the frequency of recombinants detected in
natural or experimental studies varies markedly. Given the
potential advantages of recombination, why is there apparently
so much variation between viruses in its occurrence ? While it
is too soon to provide a de®nitive answer to this crucial
question, it is possible to dissect the process that gives rise to
recombinants and to consider the constraints that could act at
each stage to inhibit it.

Most viruses are identified based on their capacity and mechanisms used to produce disease; however, healthy individuals harbor viral communities that do not cause directly known pathologies. These viral communities are known as the human virome (Rohwer et al., 2009). The coexistence of viruses and bacteria within the microbiome encourages the study of viral evasion mechanisms that provide immune system tolerance to these pathogens. These mechanisms are undoubtedly also used during the pathophysiology of viral diseases (Abeles and Pride, 2014).
Microbiota Against Viral Infection
Since the discovery that gut bacteria instruct host immunity, i.e., they restrict pathogen proliferation, it would seem logical to think that the intestinal microbiota would also play a predominant role in viral etiology infection inhibition. Studies reveal that commensal bacteria are crucial in maintaining immune homeostasis and immune responses at mucosal surfaces (Ichinohe et al., 2011). Mucous membranes are the gateway to many pathogens, including viruses. For example, intestinal microorganisms promote maturation of the secondary lymphoid organs within the gastrointestinal tract, which is the first line of defense of the intestinal mucosa (Karst, 2016). Germ-free mice are unable to mount an efficient immune response against pathogens due to immature intestinal lymphoid structures (Hooper et al., 2012; Kamada and Núñez, 2014).
Given the complexity of the microenvironment in mucosal surfaces, it makes sense that the most studied bacteria and virus interactions are the ones involving the intestinal microbiome. The protective role of commensal bacteria, mainly probiotics, is well-established; however, in its interactions with viruses, more studies are needed. The Lactobacillus genus can inhibit murine norovirus (MNV) replication in vitro, which could be mediated by the increased expression of IFNβ and IFNγ. In vivo models show that these bacteria are decreased during MNV infection, though with the aid of retinoic acid treatment, it is possible to avoid this effect. It has been hypothesized that the antiviral effects of vitamin A (and consequently, retinoic acid) are mediated by the Lactobacillus genus due to interferon production (Lee and Ko, 2016).

In some cases, evolutionary
evidence suggests that newly formed recombinant strains may
have initially exhibited decreased functionality, but subsequently
evolved to compensate for these effects. For
example, the Western equine encephalitis (WEE) complex
viruses are the product of a single recombination event that
occurred between Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) and
a Sindbis-like virus, probably within the last 2000 years
(Weaver et al., 1997). Sequence analysis of WEEV indicated
that, subsequent to the recombination event, its EEEV-like
capsid protein evolved to become more like a Sindbis-virus
capsid, possibly because it needs to interact with Sindbis-like
glycoproteins during virus budding (Hahn et al., 1988).
Conversely, in a sort of evolutionary compromise, almost all
the amino acid changes in the Sindbis-like glycoproteins have
been to residues that match those of EEEV. It is possible that
the new antigenic properties conferred by the Sindbis-like
glycoproteins of this predominantly EEEV-like hybrid were
sufficiently advantageous to off-set what appears to have been
a signi®cant mismatch between its recombinant structural
Whatever the circumstances of the survival and subsequent
diversi®cation of particular recombinants, it is now evident
that many pass through the narrow gates of natural selection
and contribute to the diversity seen in RNA viruses. The
production of new strains having genomes comprising regions
with different histories has important implications for the way
we think about virus evolution. For one, it means that there is
no single phylogenetic tree that can describe the evolutionary
relationships between viruses ; the recombinative nature of
viruses simply precludes the possibility of a ` true ' phylogenetic
taxonomy. Far from being an incidental process best ignored
when considering virus relationships and history, recombination
may have played a crucial role in generating many of
the taxonomic groups we recognize (Koonin & Dolja, 1993) ±
today's hopeful monster giving rise to tomorrow's genus or
family of viruses. Some studies of recombination have even led
to recommendations that higher-than-family taxonomic units
should be avoided altogether (Goldbach, 1992).

For this reason, these viruses are called positive-sense RNA viruses. In other RNA viruses, the RNA is a complementary copy of mRNA and these viruses rely on the cell's or their own enzyme to make mRNA. These are called negative-sense RNA viruses. In viruses made from DNA, the method of mRNA production is similar to that of the cell. The species of viruses called retroviruses behave completely differently: they have RNA, but inside the host cell a DNA copy of their RNA is made. This DNA is then incorporated into the host's, and copied into mRNA by the cell's normal pathways.
When a virus infects a cell, the virus forces it to make thousands more viruses. It does this by making the cell copy the virus's DNA or RNA, making viral proteins, which all assemble to form new virus particles.
There are six basic, overlapping stages in the life cycle of viruses in living cells:
- Attachment is the binding of the virus to specific molecules on the surface of the cell. This specificity restricts the virus to a very limited type of cell. For example, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infects only human T cells, because its surface protein, gp120, can only react with CD4 and other molecules on the T cell's surface. Plant viruses can only attach to plant cells and cannot infect animals. This mechanism has evolved to favour those viruses that only infect cells in which they are capable of reproducing.
- Penetration follows attachment; viruses penetrate the host cell by endocytosis or by fusion with the cell.
- Uncoating happens inside the cell when the viral capsid is removed and destroyed by viral enzymes or host enzymes, thereby exposing the viral nucleic acid.
- Replication of virus particles is the stage where a cell uses viral messenger RNA in its protein synthesis systems to produce viral proteins. The RNA or DNA synthesis abilities of the cell produce the virus's DNA or RNA.
- Assembly takes place in the cell when the newly created viral proteins and nucleic acid combine to form hundreds of new virus particles.
- Release occurs when the new viruses escape or are released from the cell. Most viruses achieve this by making the cells burst, a process called lysis. Other viruses such as HIV are released more gently by a process called budding.
Effects on the host cell
The range of structural and biochemical effects that viruses have on the host cell is extensive. These are called cytopathic effects.

Viruses are able to interfere with the host cell processes that our bodies use to replicate cells, and protein synthesis is often one of their targets. For the first time, researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford have witnessed virus-induced “frameshifting” in action and have been able to identify the crucial role of particular elements.
The scientists have revealed the workings of the process known as ‘ribosomal frameshifting’ that forces a mis-reading of the genetic code during protein synthesis. The correct expression of most genes depends upon accurate translation of the ‘frame’ of the genetic code, which has a three nucleotide periodicity. Viruses such as HIV and SARS bring into the cell a special signal that forces the ribosome to back up by one nucleotide, pushing it into another ‘frame’ and allowing synthesis of different viral proteins. These are exploited by viruses and help them to survive and multiply, according to background information in the article.
The British researchers successfully imaged frameshifting in action and for the first time observed how a virus encoded element called an RNA pseudoknot interferes with the translation of the genetic code to allow viruses like HIV and SARS to express their own enzymes of replication.
Dr Ian Brierley, the project leader at the University of Cambridge, said: “The images we obtained give us an insight into how a virus-encoded RNA pseudoknot can induce frameshifting and may be useful in designing new ways to combat virus pathogens that use this process.” Professor Julia Goodfellow, Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council said: “The work to explore fundamental biology today is laying the foundation for potential medical applications over the next twenty years.”
MEDICA.de; Source: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)

Importantly the increased neurovirulence of some virus strains correlates with their increased resistance to IFN-I-mediated antiviral effects in nonneuronal cells (14 -16) implying that such strains might be able to replicate even in IFN-I.

This was demonstrated for several different viruses and plant hosts (Xu et al., 2008). Mild strains of plant viruses protect plants from more severe isolates, a phenomenon known as cross-protection (Fraser, 1998) that led to the initial generation of virus-induced pathogen protection in transgenic plants. Endogenous pararetroviral elements in plants can confer resistance to exogenous viruses (Staginnus et al., 2007). The coat protein gene of a persistent virus in white clover affects the development of nodules under varying nitrogen levels, and this could be transferred to other legumes (Nakatsukasa-Akune et al., 2005). Curvularia thermal tolerance virus is a mycovirus that infects a plant fungal endophyte, Curvularia protuberata. When both virus and fungus are present in hot springs panic grass (Dichanthelium lanuginosum) the holobiont is able to grow in soil temperatures up to 65◦ C (Márquez et al., 2007). Many more examples of mutualistic viruses can be found in other hosts (Roossinck, 2011). In addition, viruses are important in population control of their hosts, and marine viruses are probably extremely important to the movement of carbon and trace elements in the microbiome of the oceans (Danovaro et al., 2011).
PLANT VIRUS ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION The existence of plant-virus mutualistic relationships should not be surprising
when one considers the numerous examples of mutualistic relationships between plants or animals and other microbes. Despite examples, there has been very little focus on exploring mutualistic relationships among plants and viruses. Viruses are also involved in the complex interactions between plants and insects, and can alter insect feeding behavior, fecundity, and ability to invade new territory (reviewed in Roossinck, 2013). Further complicating our understanding of plant-virus interactions is the role globalization has on the relationships between viruses and their plant hosts. Viruses are not stationary, and their movement geographically and between host species can have drastic effects on the ecology of a given area. Climate change can alter the behavior of many virus vectors, promoting the spread of viral distribution across a larger geographic area (Lebouvier et al., 2011).

Its presence is associated with the production of misformed mimivirids, and causes a 70% reduction in production of infectious Mimivirus. The conclusion of the researchers is unprecedented but almost inevitable - Sputnik is a virus that parasitises another virus.
Of course, it's not so simple and straightforward. Perhaps one could argue that Sputnik is not so much attacking the Mimivirus directly as hijacking the replicative framework produced by the amoebozoan host that the Mimivirus is inducing. But then, one could make similar (and perhaps similarly facetious) arguments about almost any case of hyperparasitism involving more unequivocal living organisms, or many other trophic relationships - if a lion kills a zebra then eats the zebra's stomach and intestines, is it eating the zebra or the grass ingested by the zebra? If there is one rule in biology, it is that life does not take kindly to clear-cut definitions.
More has been written on the Sputnik virus at Living the Scientific Life.
La Scola, B., S. Audic, C. Robert, L. Jungang, X. de Lamballerie, M. Drancourt, R. Birtles, J.-M. Claverie & D. Raoult. 2003. A giant virus in amoebae. Science 299: 2033.
La Scola, B., C. Desnues, I. Pagnier, C. Robert, L. Barrassi, G. Fournous, M. Merchat, M. Suzan-Monti, P. Forterre, E. Koonin & D. Raoult (in press, 2008) The virophage as a unique parasite of the giant mimivirus. Nature.
Raoult, D., S. Audic, C. Robert, C. Abergel, P. Renesto, H. Ogata, B. La Scola, M. Suzan & J.-M. Claverie. 2004. The 1.2-megabase genome sequence of Mimivirus. Science 306: 1344-1350.
Suzan-Monti, M. B. La Scola, L. Barrassi, L. Espinosa & D. Raoult. 2007.

A third risk might be that the del-L virus could reacquire the L gene from the helper cell line. As mentioned previously, there is no recorded case of a NNSRV picking up genetic material from a host mRNA, making it unlikely that it would happen in this case. In any event, the entire L gene transcription unit is removed from the del-L construct (including the gene transcription start and end sequences), while the helper cell contains only the L protein ORF, so that even if recombination were to occur between viral genome and cell mRNA, vital parts of the virus would be missing.
While we have not carried out this study, it is likely that the PPRV-del-L construct could be replicated by another morbillivirus, though not very well. A related construct based on two defective measles virus genomes has been propagated , though the resultant virus did not grow well, presumably because the minimum infectious unit needed to contain one of each genome. It was only maintained because both genomes were defective and had to support each other in trans. Co-infection of a cell by both PPRV-del-L and another morbillivirus (e.g. CDV) would lead to replication of the PPRV-del-L genome and transcription of its genes. However, this is essentially the same as the CDV replicating in the presence of a large deletion DI (defective interfering particle). Replication of the CDV would be decreased, and the “DI” still could not replicate independently. PPRV as such would not be recreated. Such a mixed infection could conceivably give rise to a sort of two-segmented pathogenic virus containing both the full genome of the non-contained morbillivirus and that of the PPRV-del-L replicon, but such a mixture would be under the usual selective pressure to lose the "DI" component.
Our results in morbilliviruses are completely in line with work done with another NNSRV, vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), which has been developed in several laboratories as a gene delivery tool by removing the gene for the viral G protein; the VSV G protein functions both for viral attachment and fusion with the target cell. The resultant cut down viral genome, with or without the addition of other, heterologous, coding sequences (e.g.

A higher and more goal way to determine cytopathic effects is required. Cells contaminated by enveloped viruses express viral proteins on their plasma membrane, which are used by viruses to mediate fusion with the host cell. When these viral proteins bind to receptors on the floor of neighboring cells, cell–cell fusion takes place, resulting in syncytia formation . Since the virus is occupying mobile factors which are otherwise utilized by the cell, its replication can alter the host cell´s fundamental features and even destroy it.

And perhaps the most important
physical constraint on template switching ± particularly
with respect to homologous recombination ± is simply
the extent of sequence dissimilarity between potentially
recombining genomes. Finally, genetic variation in the susceptibility
of the viral replicase to jumping (Bujarski & Nagy,
1996) no doubt plays a central role in determining how often
and by what mechanism particular viruses recombine.
Recombination occurs when these ®rst four steps are
ful®lled. Whether incipient recombinants persist, however,
depends on the fifth and final step, the selective separation of
the wheat from the chaff among hybrids. Although there is
strong evidence that genetic exchange can offer advantages in
some circumstances, random recombination no doubt destroys
more good alleles than it creates. PCR studies which have
made possible the characterization of the initial products of
recombination ± those present prior to removal by selection
(Banner & Lai, 1991; Desport et al., 1998; Jarvis & Kirkegaard,
1992) ± have produced important insights. Banner and Lai's
study of coronaviruses (1991), for example, showed that the
initial recombination events in their MHV system were almost
entirely randomly distributed along the sequence investigated.
It was only after passage through cell culture, with the
opportunity for selection to remove less variants, that
crossover sites became ` localized ' to just a small area of the
region examined. With enough passages, the recombinants
disappeared altogether. These results indicated that `recombination
hotspots ' can actually be the result of natural selection
on a pool of random recombination crossover junctions, as
opposed to elevated recombination rates in particular regions.
Crucially, they also suggested that recombination may be
more common than often assumed, but may go undetected
because of the action of strong purifying selection which will
remove new, deleterious combinations of mutations. In light of
these studies it is clear that what is meant by ` recombination
frequency' ± a term usually used without specified units ±
depends critically on whether we are assessing recombination
events before or after selection has acted. A virus which often
produces hybrid RNAs under laboratory conditions may very
rarely ± or even never ± be found to recombine in nature.

In addition, we created a virus that expresses GFP and thus allows convenient monitoring of virus replication. These new tools represent a
... consequence.Protein spike similar. HE gene absent. 2787 nucleotides. Largest genome. Jumps species by genetic deletion. < 300 compounds screened. Glycyrrhizin (liquorics/mullatha) seems attractive. Antivirals not effective. Vaccines – animal model only in monkeys. Killed corona or knockout weakened virus as targets.
Verbruggen, Paul; Ruf, Marius; Blakqori, Gjon; Överby, Anna K; Heidemann, Martin; Eick, Dirk; Weber, Friedemann
La Crosse encephalitis virus (LACV) is a mosquito-borne member of the negative-strand RNA virus family Bunyaviridae. We have previously shown that the virulence factor NSs of LACV is an efficient inhibitor of the antiviral type I interferon system. A recombinant virus unable to express NSs (rLACVdelNSs) strongly induced interferon transcription, whereas the corresponding wt virus (rLACV) suppressed it. Here, we show that interferon induction by rLACVdelNSs mainly occurs through the signaling pathway leading from the pattern recognition receptor RIG-I to the transcription factor IRF-3. NSs expressed by rLACV, however, acts downstream of IRF-3 by specifically blocking RNA polymerase II-dependent transcription. Further investigations revealed that NSs induces proteasomal degradation of the mammalian RNA polymerase II subunit RPB1. NSs thereby selectively targets RPB1 molecules of elongating RNA polymerase II complexes, the so-called IIo form. This phenotype has similarities to the cellular DNA damage response, and NSs was indeed found to transactivate the DNA damage response gene pak6. Moreover, NSs expressed by rLACV boosted serine 139 phosphorylation of histone H2A.X, one of the earliest cellular reactions to damaged DNA. However, other DNA damage response markers such as up-regulation and serine 15 phosphorylation of p53 or serine 1524 phosphorylation of BRCA1 were not triggered by LACV infection.

PMID:29670029
Fensterl, Volker; Chattopadhyay, Saurabh; Sen, Ganes C
The interferon system protects mammals against virus infections. There are several types of interferons, which are characterized by their ability to inhibit virus replication and resultant pathogenesis by triggering both innate and cell-mediated immune responses. Virus infection is sensed by a variety of cellular pattern-recognition receptors and triggers the synthesis of interferons, which are secreted by the infected cells. In uninfected cells, cell surface receptors recognize the secreted interferons and activate intracellular signaling pathways that induce the expression of interferon-stimulated genes; the proteins encoded by these genes inhibit different stages of virus replication. To avoid extinction, almost all viruses have evolved mechanisms to defend themselves against the interferon system. Consequently, a dynamic equilibrium of survival is established between the virus and its host, an equilibrium that can be shifted to the host's favor by the use of exogenous interferon as a therapeutic antiviral agent.
Full Text Available Since the beginning of this century, humanity has been facing a new emerging, or re-emerging, virus threat almost every year: West Nile, Influenza A, avian flu, dengue, Chikungunya, SARS, MERS, Ebola, and now Zika, the latest newcomer. Zika virus (ZIKV, a flavivirus transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes, was identified in 1947 in a sentinel monkey in Uganda, and later on in humans in Nigeria. The virus was mainly confined to the African continent until it was detected in south-east Asia the 1980´s, then in the Micronesia in 2007 and, more recently in the Americas in 2014, where it has displayed an explosive spread, as advised by the World Health Organization (WHO, which resulted in the infection of hundreds of thousands of people. ZIKV infection was characterized by causing a mild disease presented with fever, headache, rash, arthralgia, and conjunctivitis, with exceptional reports of an association with Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS and microcephaly. However, since the end of 2015, an increase in the number of GBS associated cases and an astonishing number of microcephaly in foetus and new-borns in Brazil have been related to ZIKV infection, raising serious worldwide public health concerns.

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Dept. of Molecular Genetics & Microbiology, Program in Immunology & Virology
RNA Interference; Adenoviridae; MicroRNAs; RNA, Small Interfering; RNA, Viral; Academic Dissertations; Dissertations, UMMS
In the complex relationships of mammalian viruses with their hosts, it is currently unclear as to what role RNA silencing pathways play during the course of infection. RNA silencing-based immunity is the cornerstone of plant and invertebrate defense against viral pathogens, and examples of host defense mechanisms and numerous viral counterdefense mechanisms exist. Recent studies indicate that RNA silencing might also play an active role in the context of a mammalian virus infection. We show here that a mammalian virus, human adenovirus, interacts with RNA silencing pathways during infection, as the virus produces microRNAs (miRNAs) and regulates the expression of Dicer, a key component of RNA silencing mechanisms.
Our work demonstrates that adenovirus encodes two miRNAs within the loci of the virus-associated RNA I (VA RNA I). We find that one of these miRNAs, miR-VA “g”, enters into a functional, Argonaute-2 (Ago-2)-containing silencing complex during infection. Currently, the cellular or viral target genes for these miRNAs remain unidentified. Inhibition of the function of the miRNAs during infection did not affect viral growth in a highly cytopathic cell culture model. However, studies from other viruses implicate viral miRNAs in the establishment of latent or chronic infections.
Additionally, we find that adenovirus infection leads to the reduced expression of Dicer. This downregulation does not appear to be dependent on the presence of VA RNA or its associated miRNAs. Rather, Dicer levels appear to inversely correlate with the level of viral replication, indicating that another viral gene product is responsible for this activity. Misregulation of Dicer expression does not appear to influence viral growth in a cell culture model of infection, and also does not lead to gross changes in the pool of cellular miRNAs. Taken together, our results demonstrate that RNA silencing pathways are active participants in the process of infection with human adenovirus.

In contrast, and consistent with our previous report , none of the UV-inactivated viruses had significant anti-proliferative effects.
We previously reported that types I and III (lambda) IFN play a role in the inhibition of CD4+ T cell proliferation in response to HRSV-exposed MDDC . Therefore, we asked whether adding IFN-β (which is the earliest type I IFN released from MDDC following stimulation by the whole panel of viruses ), IL-28A (IFN-λ2), or IL-29 (IFN-λ1), individually or combined, during co-culture might affect proliferation in response to SEB. Figure 4 C shows that among six donors, IFN-β (added at 75 IU/ml, a concentration representative of that detectable after exposure of MDDC to virus ) resulted in a significant 19% reduction of proliferation in response to SEB (P≤0.05 as compared to mock-treated MDDC). For three of the 6 donors, mock-treated MDDC were also co-cultured with CD4+ T cells in the presence of IL-28A or IL-29, or IL-28A, IL-29, and IFN-β together. We found that the type III interferons have limited, if any, additional suppressive effects.
As part of the experiments described in the previous section, proliferating CD4+ T cells were analyzed by intracellular cytokine staining to quantify expression of IFN-γ, IL-4, IL-17 and TNF-α. Since there was minimal detection of cells producing IL-17 at any time point (data not shown), we focused on the production of IL-4, IFN-γ and TNF-α. However, IL-4+ cells that were detected were also IFN-γ+ and TNF-α+ (Figure 5A). The proportions of single IL-4 positive cells were very low and are not shown.
From the experiments shown in Figure 4 A and B, we analyzed the time course of cytokine production by proliferating CD4+ T cells, during co-culture in the presence of SEB, with MDDC that had been treated with live or UV-inactivated rHRSV, IAV, or mock treatment.

Better way to develop vaccine against flu virus identifiedMay 13th, 2009 - 12:40 pm ICT by ANI
Washington, May 13 (ANI): By cashing-in on the interaction between a virus and antibodies that fight infection, Princeton University scientists may have discovered a better way to make a vaccine against the flu virus.
The researchers have said that by manipulating the multi-stage interactive process- called antibody interference-to advantage, it could be possible to design more powerful vaccines than exist today.
“We have proposed that antibody interference plays a major role in determining the effectiveness of the antibody response to a viral infection. And we believe that in order to get a more powerful vaccine, people are going to want one that minimizes this interference,” said Ned Wingreen, a professor of molecular biology.
When Ndifon and colleagues analysed data about viral structure, antibody types and the reactions between them produced by virology laboratories across the country, they noticed a confusing pattern.
They found that antibodies were often better at protecting against a slightly different virus, a close cousin, than against the virus that spurred their creation-a process known as cross-reactivity.
On a closer look, they found that a phenomenon known as antibody interference was at play-it arises when a virus prompts the creation of multiple types of antibodies.
As a result, during a viral attack, antibodies vie with each other to defend the body, and sometimes crowd each other out while they attempt to attach themselves to the surface of the virus.
But, strangely, antibodies that are actually less effective at protecting the body against a specific virus are also equally adept at attaching themselves to the virus, blocking the more effective antibodies from doing their job.
Thus, the scientists have suggested that if a way can be found to weaken the binding of the less effective antibodies, this might constitute a new approach to vaccine design.
The researchers claimed that the pattern of enhanced cross-reactivities could easily be attributed to viruses that differ only at the sites on their surfaces where the less effective antibodies bind.
Such variants would make ideal vaccine strains, guiding the immune system to produce two distinct types of antibodies: effective ones that are well matched to and good at binding to the infecting virus, and ineffective ones that are poorly matched to and bad at binding to the infecting virus, and consequently stay out of the way.
The findings have been described in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The initial step for the stimulation of cytokine response in RNA virus infection is cellular activation of dsRNA receptor systems, Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3) [51, 52] and retinoic acid inducible gene-I (RIG-I) . These two pathways lead to the activation of IκB kinase (IKK) α/β/γ complex and IKK-like kinases e.g. IKKϵ and TANK binding kinase 1 (TBK1) [53–57]; which mediate the activation and nuclear translocation of NFκB and interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) [58, 59]. Inside the nucleus; IRF3, NFκB and activator protein 1 (AP-1), transcription factors stimulate type I IFN and proinflammatory cytokine genes expression. Many viruses have evolved the strategy to impede the effector mechanisms induced through these pathways , but viral interference with the significant proximal receptor interactions has not yet been depicted. NS3/4A appears to mediate proteolysis of a cellular protein within an antiviral signaling pathway upstream of IRF-3. IFN-α (α1), IFN-β and IFN-λ (λ1) genes are extremely sensitive to the inhibitory effect of NS3/4A. There is also an inhibitory effect of NS3/4A on other cytokine/chemokine gene promoters such as IFN-β, CCL5/RANTES,CXCL10/ IP-10, CXCL8/IL-8, TNF-α and IFN-α4. Thus, NS3/4A protein is not only an effective antagonist of the IFN-β promoter but also of other cytokine/chemokine promoters. Inhibition of IRF-3 activation requires only NS3/4A protease activity and is abrogated by a specific, peptido-mimetic protease inhibitor, SCH6 .
Disruption of TLR3 and RIG-I pathways by HCV NS3/4A
TLR3 is expressed on endosomal membranes (and the plasma membranes of some cells) and senses dsRNA that is present in endosomal and/or extracellular compartments as shown in Figure 2. TLR3 signaling pathway proceeds through the adaptor protein, TRIF also called TICAM-1 .

1977, 22: 844-847.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Refardt D: Within-host competition determines reproductive success of temperate bacteriophages. ISME J. 2011, 5: 1451-1460. 10.1038/ismej.2011.30.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Priess H, Kamp D, Kahmann R, Brauer B, Delius H: Nucleotide sequence of the immunity region of bacteriophage Mu. Mol Gen Genet. 1982, 186: 315-321. 10.1007/BF00729448.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Berngruber TW, Weissing FJ, Gandon S: Inhibition of superinfection and the evolution of viral latency. J Virol. 2010, 84: 10200-10208. 10.1128/JVI.00865-10.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vanvliet F, Couturier M, Desmet L, Faelen M, Toussaint A: Virulent Mutants of Temperate Phage-Mu-1. Mol Gen Genet. 1978, 160: 195-202. 10.1007/BF00267481.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Benzer S: Fine Structure of a Genetic Region in Bacteriophage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1955, 41: 344-354. 10.1073/pnas.41.6.344.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Susskind MM, Botstein D, Wright A: Superinfection exclusion by P22 prophage in lysogens of Salmonella typhimurium. III. Failure of superinfecting phage DNA to enter sieA+ lysogens. Virology. 1974, 62: 350-366. 10.1016/0042-6822(74)90398-5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Susskind MM, Botstein D: Superinfection exclusion by lambda prophage in lysogens of Salmonella typhimurium. Virology. 1980, 100: 212-216.

In the case of IAV, there was a significant reduction in the percentage of T cells expressing TNF-α, or both TNF-α and IFN-γ, as compared to mock. In addition, IAV reduced the IFN-γ and TNF-α MFIs in the IFN-γ+ and TNF-α + single positive population, respectively (Figure 5 C). Thus, overall, the response to secondary SEB stimulation was not significantly affected by prior infection with rHRSV, rHMPV, or rHPIV3, whereas there was a modest but significant inhibitory effect by IAV at day 4.
The ability of HRSV, HMPV and HPIV3 to re-infect symptomatically throughout life without the need for significant antigenic change has led to the widely held speculation that these viruses, especially HRSV, can suppress or subvert the host adaptive immune response, resulting in incomplete and inefficient long-term immunity. A number of studies have addressed virus-specific effects on APC and T lymphocyte responses in vitro, with varied and inconsistent conclusions. The first such studies reported that exposure of adult human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) to HRSV, IAV, and Sendai virus suppressed proliferation in response to the non-specific mitogen phytohemagglutinin (PHA), an effect that was attributed to the expression of CD54/CD11a/CD18 (ICAM-1/LFA-1) and the interaction between APC and T cells , . In 1992, Preston et al.  showed that exposure of human cord blood mononuclear cells to HRSV resulted in a reduction in proliferation in response to PHA. The same study showed that exposure of adult PBMC to HRSV reduced the proliferation response to Epstein-Barr virus antigen, although this effect was not seen with all of the tested HRSV strains. This effect was attributed to secreted IFN-α . In another study, HPIV3 was shown to reduce proliferation of adult human PBMC in response to CD3-specific antibodies, an effect that was attributed to increased production of IL-10 .
More recent studies have used increasingly more defined conditions. Bartz et al.

NSs induces a shut-off of host transcription including interferon (IFN)-beta mRNA7,8
and promotes degradation of double-stranded RNA-dependent protein kinase (PKR) at the post-translational level.9,10
IFN-beta is transcriptionally upregulated by interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF-3), NF-kB and activator protein-1 (AP-1), and the binding of IFN-beta to IFN-alpha/beta receptor (IFNAR) stimulates the transcription of IFN-alpha genes or other interferon stimulated genes (ISGs)11
, which induces host antiviral activities, whereas host transcription suppression including IFN-beta gene by NSs prevents the gene upregulations of those ISGs in response to viral replication although IRF-3, NF-kB and activator protein-1 (AP-1) can be activated by RVFV7. . Thus, NSs is an excellent target to further attenuate MP-12, and to enhance host innate immune responses by abolishing the IFN-beta suppression function. Here, we describe a protocol for generating a recombinant MP-12 encoding mutated NSs, and provide an example of a screening method to identify NSs mutants lacking the function to suppress IFN-beta mRNA synthesis. In addition to its essential role in innate immunity, type-I IFN is important for the maturation of dendritic cells and the induction of an adaptive immune response12-14
. Thus, NSs mutants inducing type-I IFN are further attenuated, but at the same time are more efficient at stimulating host immune responses than wild-type MP-12, which makes them ideal candidates for vaccination approaches.
Immunology, Issue 57, Rift Valley fever virus, reverse genetics, NSs, MP-12, vaccine development
Dissecting Host-virus Interaction in Lytic Replication of a Model Herpesvirus
Institutions: UT Southwestern Medical Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center.
In response to viral infection, a host develops various defensive responses, such as activating innate immune signaling pathways that lead to antiviral cytokine production1,2
. In order to colonize the host, viruses are obligate to evade host antiviral responses and manipulate signaling pathways. Unraveling the host-virus interaction will shed light on the development of novel therapeutic strategies against viral infection.

A classic example of virus–host interactions being blocked at the interface level is the action of Maraviroc as an inhibitor of HIV-1 entry to host cells (PDB 4MBS). This drug binds the cellular co-receptor CCR5, preventing it from interacting with GP120 (Figure 2), an essential step of HIV-1 infection (Macarthur and Novak, 2008).
Figure 2. Representation of CCR5 (blue) bound with a Maraviroc molecule (yellow), superposed with the HIV-1 GP120 V3 loop (red), as proposed by Tamamis and Floudas (2014). As depicted, the drug occupies a CCR5 pocket, blocking its interaction with GP120.
Modes of Protein Interaction
PPIs commonly rely on large interfaces, whilst transient ones involve short linear peptides, as sequence motifs composed of 15 residues or less (Segura-Cabrera et al., 2013). Proteins that show a wide range of binding partners are called “hubs.” Hubs having only few interfaces are likely to interact transiently with different partners at different times (date hubs; Han et al., 2004), usually via domain–motif interactions (Franzosa and Xia, 2011). Conversely, proteins showing multiple interfaces tend to establish simultaneous interactions with multiple partners. Such proteins (party hubs) are likely to arrange themselves in complexes, via stable DDIs (Han et al., 2004).
Due to their mode of interaction and number of interface residues, party hubs tend to evolve slowly, as changes in their residues are likely to impair some interactions with specific partners (Fraser et al., 2002). The opposite scenario is observed among proteins that establish transient interactions, which usually evolve faster (Teichmann, 2002). Interestingly, most viral proteins interfering with cell signaling and regulatory pathways perform transient interactions with host proteins (Perkins et al., 2010), leading to severe changes in cellular metabolism (Segura-Cabrera et al., 2013). Unfortunately, compared to stable (domain–domain) interactions, transient (domain–motif) interactions are under-represented in PPI databases, mainly due to limitations associated with the methods used so far to obtain protein–protein interaction data (Russell et al., 2004).

Viral RNA Decay
We believe that the cellular mRNA decay machinery can act as an antiviral defense mechanism. After all, many viral RNAs have evolved to mimic cellular transcripts and should therefore be ideal targets for degradation. A degraded genome cannot be replicated or translated, and therefore presents no threat (Dickson and Wilusz, 2011; Moon, Barnhart and Wilusz, 2012). Several projects in the lab focus on characterizing the interactions between viral RNAs and cellular mRNA decay factors. One virus we have investigated extensively is the alphavirus Sindbis Virus (SINV). We have discovered that SINV RNAs are actually quite resistant to decay, and this is likely because they usurp cellular RNA-binding proteins that act as stabilizing factors (Garneau et al 2008, Sokoloski et al, 2010). Our recent results show that many alphaviruses induce relocalization of the cellular HuR protein from the nucleus to the cytoplasm which presumably interferes with its normal functions (Dickson et al, 2012). We have also shown that the rabies virus glycoprotein mRNA can interact with a poly(C) binding protein to enhance its stability (Palusa et al, 2012).
Interestingly, another family of arboviruses, the flaviviruses, have evolved a completely different mechanism of interfering with mRNA decay. When their RNAs are degraded, they generate a stable intermediate called sfRNA, which inhibits the function of the host 5’-3’ exonuclease, XRN1. This results in stabilization of host cell mRNAs and likely has wide-ranging effects on host cell gene expression (Moon et al, 2012). It may also help the viral genomic RNA persist in the host cell cytoplasm.
We hypothesize that other RNA viruses (e.g. Dengue, Rabies, Ebola) will have evolved similar, or novel mechanisms to protect their genomes from the mRNA decay machinery. Moreover, by interfering with these interactions we should be able to induce viral RNA decay and prevent infection.
Moon SL, Anderson JR, Kumagai Y, Wilusz CJ, Akira S, Khromykh AA, Wilusz J. A noncoding RNA produced by arthropod-borne flaviviruses inhibits the cellular exoribonuclease XRN1 and alters host mRNA stability. RNA.

This
difference is analogous to the important distinction between
the rate of mutation and the rate of substitution.
Negative selection against non-functional hybrids or those
with decreased fitness may impose the strongest constraints of
all on the appearance of recombinants. In viruses for which the
evolutionary costs of recombination outweigh the benefi ts,
though they may be mechanistically capable of genetic
exchange, strong selection will guarantee the elimination of
Determining the constraints that operate on recombination
offers a promising path to a fuller understanding of its
importance in the evolution of RNA viruses. However, outlines
CFEA of the big picture are already clearly visible. It seems certain
that genetic exchange plays a key role in several virus groups
and that it has shaped a good deal of the diversity ± both
ancient and recent ± that exists in them. Thus, evolutionary
knowledge about recombination impacts on many aspects of
the study of RNA viruses, from the broadest investigations of
virus taxonomy, to the finest details of molecular epidemiology
and vaccine design. A ¯ood of viral gene sequence data and the
availability of new and powerful phylogenetic methods is
making the detection and characterization of recombination
ever easier, and the list of viruses showing recombination
continues to grow. The evidence for recombination, not only
between closely related viruses but also among distantly
related viruses, positive-sense and negative-sense viruses, DI
RNAs and viruses, satellite RNAs and viruses, and even with
host RNAs, suggests that almost any genetic material can be
grist for the polymerase's mill. Of all the tricks up the viral
evolutionary sleeve, surely recombination is one of the most
Aaziz, R. & Tepfer, M. (1999). Recombination in RNA viruses and in
virus-resistant transgenic plants. Journal of General Virology 80,
Allison, R. F., Janda, M. & Ahlquist, P. (1989). Sequence of cowpea
chlorotic mottle virus RNA 2 and RNA 3 and evidence of a recombination
event during bromovirus evolution. Virology 172, 321±330.
Ball, L. A. (1997). Nodavirus RNA recombination.

Special Issue "Recombination in Viruses"
Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 April 2011)
Dr. Matteo Negroni
CNRS-UPR 9002, Institut de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, 15 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg, France
Phone: +33 (0)388417006
Fax: +33 (0)388602218
Viruses are in a perpetual arm race with their hosts. Camouflage is a common strategy viruses use to escape to the immune system (either innate or adaptive) of their hosts. This generally translates in a propensity to develop replication strategies that are, at different extents, prone to the insertion of mutations in their genome. Accumulation of mutations is nevertheless limited by the need to maintain viability and its own genetic identity. Keeping the subtle equilibrium between these two contrasting forces is vital for viruses, it often influences their pathogenic potential, and can be at the origin of outbreaks of infection of relevance for public health.
Recombination is an important source of genetic variability in viruses, particularly for viruses possessing an RNA genome. The remarkable power of recombination resides in its ability, in a single infectious cycle, to generate new combinations of mutations. This is important at two regards: one is that recombination does not generate new mutations but reshuffles pre-existing ones, whose compatibility with viral survival has already been established. This is expected to increase the probability of having a viable recombinant progeny. On the other hand, the fact that, in general, several mutations are simultaneously introduced through the recombination process, is expected to favour the opposite outcome: that a high proportion of recombinant products will not be viable. Finally, recombination in concert with natural selection, can be responsible of combining advantageous mutations, as well as removing deleterious ones, by far the most abundant type of mutations found in nature.
For many viruses the generation of recombinant variants has been associated to important moments in the processes of adaptation, gain of pathogenic potential or increased spreading. Here we intend to present several of these cases and to provide an overlook of the implications of recombination for viral evolution from the theoretical standpoint.

Triplet marker sites were added by modified primers amplifying construct or wild-type DNA, followed by similar fusion PCR and cloning steps. Viruses were generated and propagated from the infectious clones as above. The coinfection experiment was performed identically, however the library generation was executed in a single emulsion step using SuperScriptIII/Platinum Taq one-step RT-PCR mix (Invitrogen) and specific primers, otherwise as above. Amplicons were sequenced on a HiSeq2000 diluted to a ratio of <1:10 with an unrelated insect RNA library to dampen decoupling effects; the poliovirus reads were prepared with unique DNA indices and were separated after sequencing. A lane that experienced severe over-clustering, which exacerbates the decoupling effect, was discarded from analysis.
Synthetic poliovirus constructs were submitted to GenBank (see materials and methods).
Fitness characterization of construct strains. A. One-step growth curves. Virus strains were applied to HeLa monolayers, washed and time-point samples frozen every two hours (x-axis) in triplicate (error bars). Samples were thawed and the titer measured by plaque assay (y-axis). B. Plaques formed by construct strains were not visually different from the wild type. C. Competition assay. Viruses were co-infected at equal titer, harvested and passaged into fresh cells four times. Viral RNA was extracted, amplified by strain-conserved primers, cloned and transformed into bacteria, and the relative quantity of each strain determined by strain specific colony PCR.
Comparison of biological replicates. HeLa monolayers were co-infected in parallel and proceeded through all steps of library preparation and sequencing separately. A. The recombination frequency at each marker pair is presented as a separate data point. Recombination was not observed at two data points; these are not included in the figure. B. Rank ordered list of marker pairs and corresponding recombination frequency.
Comparison of experimental vs. no-coinfection control datasets. A. Non-zero recombination frequencies are plotted comparing the experimental results with the control results to determine the similarity of artifactual recombination to biological recombination. B. Rank-ordered plot of experimental vs. control datasets, with the control x-axis expanded by 26-fold to display equivalent scale between the two datasets.

For example, the soil-dwelling bacterium Bacillus subtilis has viral genes that help protect it from heavy metals and other harmful substances in the soil.
Once inside a host cell, viruses take over its machinery to reproduce. Viruses override the host cell’s normal functioning with their own set of instructions that shut down production of host proteins and direct the cell to produce viral proteins to make new virus particles.

These three players, fungus, bacterium, and virus, hold an animated conversation. Transcription from the viral sequences is influenced by many factors, such as the fungal reproduction and its development, the medium, and the stage of fungal development. To conveniently study these interactions, the authors used antibacterial and antiviral drugs to create strains of fungus that are free of both bacteria and viruses. The fungi could then be reinfected at will. One interesting result suggests that bacterial colonization is reduced in the absence of the viruses. If so, the viruses would influence the degree of pathogenicity of the fungus, something that is in the process of being ascertained directly (personal communication by the last author of the paper). But there is more: The presence of the viruses decreases the fungus' asexual reproduction (sporangiospore formation). On the other hand, sexual sporulation (zygospore formation) is nearly abolished in the absence of the bacteria and the viruses. I can't say that I fully understand what's going on here but interesting it is.
The data suggest that the metabolism of the fungus is "rewired" by the growth and presence of the symbionts, possibly to enhance its metabolic plasticity. The authors ask several good questions such as which symbiosis arose first? Did one symbiont, bacterial or viral, facilitate the establishment of the other? Did either alone or together influence the evolution of the fungus? Surely, we will hear more about this ménage à trois.

In 1957, Alick Isaacs and Jean Lindenmann, both at the National Institute for Medical Research in London, set out to understand why inactivated influenza virus could induce interference in cells and tissues, preventing infection by "live" virus.
That the inactivated viruses physically blocked infection seemed unlikely. So, the two incubated chorio-allatoic membranes from chicken eggs with heat-inactivated influenza. They then washed the membranes and tried to infect them with normal virus. An interfering agent produced in response to the inactive virus seemed to be protecting both incubated membranes and fresh membranes placed in the fluids from incubated membranes. "To distinguish it from the heated influenza virus," the authors wrote, "we have called the newly released interfering agent, 'interferon.'"
Interferon was thought to apply strictly to viruses, but subsequent research showed that interferon could inhibit intracellular bacteria and tumorigenesis. Because interferon is secreted in minute amounts, it took nearly 20 years to isolate and purify the protein. In 1977, a group of researchers purified type I interferon by alternating a crude mixture between normal- and reverse-phase chromatography 80,000 times. Interferon now has several applications beyond virus inhibition; while its initial promise of cancer prevention never panned out, two pegylated interferons are commercially available for treating Hepatitis C, and recombinant IFN-β is used for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis.
The discovery of a family of interferon transcription factors in 1988,

Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK
Go to article:
Accepted for publication 6 June 2001.
Mathematical models of plant-virus disease epidemics were developed where cross protection occurs between viruses or virus strains. Such cross protection can occur both naturally and through artificial intervention. Examples of diseases with continuous and discontinuous crop-host availability were considered: citrus tristeza and barley yellow dwarf, respectively. Analyses showed that, in a single host population without artificial intervention, the two categories of host plants, infected with a protecting virus alone and infected with a challenging virus, could not coexist in the long term. For disease systems with continuous host availability, the virus (strain) with the higher basic reproductive number (R0) always excluded the other eventually; whereas, for discontinuous systems, R0 is undefined and the virus (strain) with the larger natural transmission rate was the one that persisted in the model formulation. With a proportion of hosts artificially inoculated with a protecting mild virus, the disease caused by a virulent virus could be depressed or eliminated, depending on the proportion. Artificial inoculation may be constant or adjusted in response to changes in disease incidence. The importance of maintaining a constant level of managed cross protection even when the disease incidence dropped was illustrated. Investigations of both pathosystem types showed the same qualitative result: that managed cross protection need not be 100% to eliminate the virulent virus (strain). In the process of replacement of one virus (strain) by another over time, the strongest competition occurred when the incidence of both viruses or virus strains was similar. Discontinuous crop-host availability provided a greater opportunity for viruses or virus strains to replace each other than did the more stable continuous cropping system. The process by which one Barley yellow dwarf virus replaced another in New York State was illustrated.
© 2001 The American Phytopathological Society

“But we don’t really have a great way at this point to infer at the population level which of these forms of competition, or which of these interactions, are important.”
For example, there are three major strains of influenza that have been circulating in human populations since the late 1970’s: H3N2, H1N1, and B. From one season to the next, one or the other might be more prevalent. Researchers know that, say, if it’s a big H3N2 season, then the H1N1 and B strains tend to be less widespread, or vice versa.
These viruses clearly compete with each other, but no one has been able to describe exactly how strong that competition is. On top of that, there’s some evidence other respiratory viruses like rhinoviruses (which cause common colds) also compete with various strains of influenza and complicate the picture.
“It could be something as radical as changing the food distribution for a given population, or trying to alter air currents or improve green spaces in given areas that could significantly reduce the predicted likely outcome for given areas.” — Jack Gilbert
To get a handle on how these bugs influence each other, Cobey and Gilbert are starting with statistical models they know work well for single pathogens and adjusting them to accurately simulate interactions with other bugs. They’re also including climate variables like absolute humidity, and demographic statistics like birth and death rates in a given population to see how they contribute as well. These simulations will tell them which of these factors are most important, which can then be factored into predictions for future outbreaks.
“It’s not just how they will behave individually, but how they’ll behave in the context of each other,” Gilbert said. “Instead of predicting one disease we’re predicting all of the diseases in parallel.”
The tools Cobey and Gilbert are developing could also help researchers understand the potential impact of emerging viruses, like the new coronavirus discovered in the Middle East, or pockets of old diseases like measles and whooping cough that have spread in areas of the U.S. where people refuse to get vaccinated.
But Gilbert, who studies how microbial environments grow and evolve inside our bodies, our homes and the places we work and receive medical care, said that understanding exactly how pathogens interact with each other could lead to more creative solutions to stopping outbreaks.

Experiments with RNA
viruses, one of only a handful of organisms in which this
hypothesis has actually been put to the test, have generally
supported its operation and shown decreased ®tness for
populations in which it occurs (Chao et al., 1992). Experimental
evidence (Chao et al., 1997) also shows that sex (in this case
reassortment) can reduce the mutational load in a population
and so help it escape from accumulated deleterious effects.
Although such direct experimental evidence has yet to
demonstrate a similar advantage for recombination, in principle
it too could serve to efficiently remove disadvantageous alleles
from a population by combining mutation-free parts of
different genomes. Indeed, suggestions have been made that
reassortment in segmented RNA viruses and recombination in
monopartite RNA viruses represent alternative evolutionary
strategies for genetic exchange in this group (Chao et al., 1992).
While this idea is fascinating, it is interesting to note that
reassortment and recombination are not mutually exclusive
and that several segmented viruses also experience recombination,
sometimes frequently. These include the bacteriophage
u6 (Mindich et al., 1992), rotaviruses (Suzuki et al., 1998),
in¯uenza A virus (Khatchikian et al., 1989), hantaviruses (Sibold
et al., 1999), ¯ock house virus (Li & Ball, 1993) and many plant
viruses (Bujarski & Kaesberg, 1986; Greene & Allison, 1994;
Robinson, 1994; Rott et al., 1991). As if to prove this point,
Masuta et al. (1998) recently reported an interspeci®c hybrid of
two cucomoviruses that arose by both reassortment and
Nonetheless, a great deal of evidence indicates that some
RNA viruses do benefit from the genome-purging effects of
recombination. A multitude of experimental studies have
shown that weak or even non-replicative mutant strains can
recombine to form viable, highly viruses.

We’re currently watching—often in horror—what happens as a virus and its hosts engage in an evolutionary arms race. Measures to limit infectivity and enhance immunity are selecting for viral strains that spread more readily and avoid at least some of the immune response. All of that is easily explained through evolutionary theory and has been modeled mathematically.
But not all evolutionary interactions are so neat and binary. Thursday’s edition of Science included a description of a three-way fight between butterflies, the wasps that parasitize them, and the viruses that can infect both species. To call the interactions that have ensued “complicated” is a significant understatement.
Meet the combatants
One of the groups involved is the Lepidoptera, the butterflies and moths. They are seemingly the victims in this story because, like any other species, they can be infected by viruses. Many of these viral infections can be fatal, although some kill the animal quickly, and others take their time. Since they often strike during the larval/caterpillar stages, the viruses need other hosts to transfer the viruses to other victims.

These cells also exhibited resistance to the antiviral effects of IFN-α/β. When Jak family tyrosine kinases are overexpressed in Huh7 cells, the overexpressed kinase becomes tyrosine phosphorylated, as do cellular STAT proteins. In support of the view that Jak1 is a critical and specific target of VP40, expression of either RAVV or MARV VP40 inhibits the tyrosine phosphorylation of Jak1 and STAT proteins in Jak1-overexpressing human cells (40
Notably, neither MARV nor RAVV VP40 could efficiently inhibit IFN-α/β signaling in the mouse cells tested (). Although a modest reduction in STAT1 or STAT2 phosphorylation could be seen in VP40-expressing mouse cells, relative to empty vector-transfected control cells, this inhibition was not sufficient to counteract the antiviral effects of IFN (). Strikingly, however, adaptation of RAVV to mice resulted in a VP40 fully capable of inhibiting IFN signaling and blocking the antiviral effects of IFN-β in mouse cells ( and 4). Moreover, maRAVV VP40 was able to inhibit the phosphorylation of either mouse or human Jak1 and STAT1 in human and mouse cells, while the nonadapted VP40s inhibited the phosphorylation of human Jak1 and mouse Jak1 in human cells but not in mouse cells (). These observations are consistent with a model where VP40 inhibition of Jak1 requires an additional host factor(s) to carry out its inhibitory function.
Given that the mouse-adapted RAVV exhibits increased virulence in mice, relative to the parental strain from which it was derived, the enhanced IFN antagonist function is consistent with a role for VP40 IFN antagonist function in mouse pathogenesis. Whether the mouse-adaptive changes in VP40 are sufficient for enhanced virulence in the absence of other changes remains to be determined. It is intriguing that the mouse-adapted RAVV also accumulated several amino acid changes in its VP35 protein. In EBOV, VP35 has been demonstrated to inhibit the production of IFN-α/β by antagonizing the RIG-I signaling pathway (6
). Whether these VP35 changes influence its function in mouse cells is therefore of interest.

Viruses 13 (11) - [2021-10-29; online 2021-10-29]
RNA interference (RNAi)-mediated antiviral immunity is believed to be the primary defense against viral infection in mosquitoes. The production of virus-specific small RNA has been demonstrated in mosquitoes and mosquito-derived cell lines for viruses in all of the major arbovirus families. However, many if not all mosquitoes are infected with a group of viruses known as insect-specific viruses (ISVs), and little is known about the mosquito immune response to this group of viruses. Therefore, in this study, we sequenced small RNA from an Aedes albopictus-derived cell line infected with either Lammi virus (LamV) or Hanko virus (HakV). These viruses belong to two distinct phylogenetic groups of insect-specific flaviviruses (ISFVs). The results revealed that both viruses elicited a strong virus-derived small interfering RNA (vsiRNA) response that increased over time and that targeted the whole viral genome, with a few predominant hotspots observed. Furthermore, only the LamV-infected cells produced virus-derived Piwi-like RNAs (vpiRNAs); however, they were mainly derived from the antisense genome and did not show the typical ping-pong signatures. HakV, which is more distantly related to the dual-host flaviviruses than LamV, may lack certain unknown sequence elements or structures required for vpiRNA production. Our findings increase the understanding of mosquito innate immunity and ISFVs' effects on their host.

Recently, it was reported that bacterial flagellin promotes viral infection in an in vitro model using lentiviral pseudoviruses encoding the glycoproteins of influenza, Measles, Ebola, Lassa, and Vesicular stomatitis virus in pulmonary epithelial cell culture through TLR5 and NF-κB activation (Benedikz et al., 2019). This finding is particularly exciting since previously, it was reported that flagellin had a protective effect against RV infection in mice (Zhang et al., 2014). The dual effect of flagellin could be due to the differences in the microenvironment and models used to study the interaction between the viruses and bacteria (Figure 1C). These studies exemplify how much is unknown in the interplay of bacteria and viruses.
Viruses as Part of the Human Microbiome
The intestine contains other types of organisms, besides bacteria, that can influence mucosal and systemic immune responses such as viruses (Minot et al., 2012; Kernbauer et al., 2014; Norman et al., 2015). To interpret the role of the microbiota within viral infections, we must also consider the impact that the virome may play in this interaction. A recent study approximated that in healthy humans, there are 45% of mammalian viruses that are part of the virome without a clinical outcome (Rascovan et al., 2016; Olival et al., 2017). However, similar to bacteria, resident viruses modulate the immune responses (Freer et al., 2018).
Enteric human virome has also been linked to diseases. For example, enteric eukaryotic viruses can be associated with gastroenteritis, enteritis, or colitis (Norman et al., 2015). Bacteriophages perturb the bacterial community, interplay with the host immune system, and an antagonistic relationship between bacteria and bacteriophages during inflammatory bowel disease has been reported (Duerkop and Hooper, 2013; Virgin, 2015). Also, bacteriophages contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance genes among bacteria; they form a reservoir of these genes within the microbiome (Muniesa et al., 2013; Quirós et al., 2014).

Antiviral response promotes bacterial infection
Innate immune response to virus leaves mice more susceptible to bacterial infection, study finds
An innate immune
response to viral infection can kill white blood cells needed to fight off bacteria
, according to a study
published online this week in PNAS. This effect could explain why bacterial "superinfections" can take hold in the body more easily when a viral pathogen is already present, the study authors say.
"Viral-bacterial synergism is something that is a significant clinical issue in both human and veterinary medicine and we don't have a detailed understanding of what's going on," said Charles Czuprynski
of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, who was not involved in the study.
Researchers led by Alexander A. Navarini and Mike Recher of the University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland examined superinfection in mice by first infecting them with an RNA virus called lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) and then with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes. Three days later, the mice infected with both pathogens showed 1000 times higher bacterial concentration in the liver and spleen than did mice infected with bacteria only.
Since the mice showed susceptibility to bacterial superinfection in the first three days, the authors examined key members of the early innate immune response: white blood cells called granulocytes. In humans, granulocyte number is the most important predictor of susceptibility to bacterial infection, Navarini told The Scientist. He and his colleagues found that granulocytes began undergoing apoptosis about two days after viral infection and that granulocyte numbers in bone marrow of mice infected with LCMV were considerably below normal.
"There's probably some window of time here in which viral infection leads to increased susceptibility to bacterial infection, and they're providing a mechanistic explanation for why this might be occurring," Czuprynski said.
The researchers next looked for antiviral factors that might be responsible for granulocyte death. They found that levels of type I interferon
-- a cytokine known
to become up-regulated in response to most viruses, including LCMV -- inversely correlated with levels of granulocytes. To see if there was a causal connection, the researchers infected mice lacking type I interferon receptors with LCMV. These mice did not show granulocyte cell death or sensitivity to L. monocytogenes infection ?

Some inclusion bodies represent "virus factories" in which viral nucleic acid or protein is being synthesized; others are merely artifacts of fixation and staining. One example, Negri bodies, are found in the cytoplasm or processes of nerve cells in animals that have died from rabies.Gene Expression Regulation, Viral: Any of the processes by which cytoplasmic factors influence the differential control of gene action in viruses.Viral Interference: A phenomenon in which infection by a first virus results in resistance of cells or tissues to infection by a second, unrelated virus.Parainfluenza Virus 1, Human: A species of RESPIROVIRUS also called hemadsorption virus 2 (HA2), which causes laryngotracheitis in humans, especially children.Phylogeny: The relationships of groups of organisms as reflected by their genetic makeup.Viral Core Proteins: Proteins found mainly in icosahedral DNA and RNA viruses. They consist of proteins directly associated with the nucleic acid inside the NUCLEOCAPSID.Amino Acid Sequence: The order of amino acids as they occur in a polypeptide chain. This is referred to as the primary structure of proteins. It is of fundamental importance in determining PROTEIN CONFORMATION.Genetic Vectors: DNA molecules capable of autonomous replication within a host cell and into which other DNA sequences can be inserted and thus amplified. Many are derived from PLASMIDS; BACTERIOPHAGES; or VIRUSES. They are used for transporting foreign genes into recipient cells. Genetic vectors possess a functional replicator site and contain GENETIC MARKERS to facilitate their selective recognition.HeLa Cells: The first continuously cultured human malignant CELL LINE, derived from the cervical carcinoma of Henrietta Lacks. These cells are used for VIRUS CULTIVATION and antitumor drug screening assays.Immunoglobulin G: The major immunoglobulin isotype class in normal human serum. There are several isotype subclasses of IgG, for example, IgG1, IgG2A, and IgG2B.Virion: The infective system of a virus, composed of the viral genome, a protein core, and a protein coat called a capsid, which may be naked or enclosed in a lipoprotein envelope called the peplos.Antiviral Agents: Agents used in the prophylaxis or therapy of VIRUS DISEASES.

These two pathways lead to the activation of IκB kinase (IKK) α/β/γ complex and IKK-like kinases e.g. IKKϵ and TANK binding kinase 1 (TBK1) [53–57]; which mediate the activation and nuclear translocation of NFκB and interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) [58, 59]. Inside the nucleus; IRF3, NFκB and activator protein 1 (AP-1), transcription factors stimulate type I IFN and proinflammatory cytokine genes expression. Many viruses have evolved the strategy to impede the effector mechanisms induced through these pathways , but viral interference with the significant proximal receptor interactions has not yet been depicted. NS3/4A appears to mediate proteolysis of a cellular protein within an antiviral signaling pathway upstream of IRF-3. IFN-α (α1), IFN-β and IFN-λ (λ1) genes are extremely sensitive to the inhibitory effect of NS3/4A. There is also an inhibitory effect of NS3/4A on other cytokine/chemokine gene promoters such as IFN-β, CCL5/RANTES,CXCL10/ IP-10, CXCL8/IL-8, TNF-α and IFN-α4. Thus, NS3/4A protein is not only an effective antagonist of the IFN-β promoter but also of other cytokine/chemokine promoters. Inhibition of IRF-3 activation requires only NS3/4A protease activity and is abrogated by a specific, peptido-mimetic protease inhibitor, SCH6 .
Disruption of TLR3 and RIG-I pathways by HCV NS3/4A
Huh7 hepatoma cells, which are almost exceptional in their ability to support HCV infection in vitro, are deficient in TLR3 signaling due to a lack of TLR3 expression . The absence of an HCV permissive cell line having functional TLR3/TRIF-dependent pathway has made it difficult to determine that HCV infection is sensed by TLR3. TLR3 is expressed in normal human hepatocytes in situ.

A disease possessing all mammalian-adapting residues in PB2 (i.e., PB2-147T, -339T, -588T and -627K, as was found in an H5N1 NVP-BGJ398 supplier virus isolated from a fatal human case) was more pathogenic than viruses possessing only PB2-627K or PB2-147T/339T/588T . The viral interferon antagonist NS1 protein Virus infections stimulate the expression of IFN and the activation of interferon-induced genes (ISGs). Many ISGs encode proteins with antiviral functions, such as PKR, Mx resistance proteins, IFITM proteins, ISG15, OAS, RNase L or Viperin. Most viruses have therefore evolved mechanisms to control the upregulation of IFN and interferon-stimulated genes and/or the actions of proteins with antiviral activities. In 1998, NVP-BGJ398 supplier Garcia-Sastre reported that the influenza A virus NS1 protein is critical to antagonize innate immune responses, while this protein is dispensable in IFN-deficient systems such as Vero cells . The NS1 protein interferes with the stimulation of innate immune responses through several mechanisms (reviewed in [21,71]): it suppresses the activation of the IFN- promoter and the upregulation of the IRF-3, NF-B and AP-1 transcription factors, all of which regulate IFN- transcription. NS1 also binds to TRIM25 and the cytoplasmic sensor RIG-I, resulting in suppressed RIG-I signaling and IFN- synthesis. Binding of NS1 to double-stranded RNA NVP-BGJ398 supplier also interferes with the activation of antiviral factors such as OAS/RNaseL and PKR. Moreover, NS1 binds to the 30-kDa subunit of CPSF and to PABII proteins, which prevents the efficient cleavage and polyadenylation of cellular pre-mRNAs; this mechanism may limit the amount of IFN- produced in response to an influenza virus infection. Several studies have demonstrated that the NS viral RNA segment of a highly pathogenic H5N1 virus can increase the virulence of a recipient virus, such as an H1N1 or H7N1 virus [43,72]. Moreover, the NS gene.

Most virus infections eventually result in the death of the host cell. The causes of death include cell lysis (bursting), alterations to the cell's surface membrane and apoptosis (cell "suicide"). Often cell death is caused by cessation of its normal activity due to proteins produced by the virus, not all of which are components of the virus particle.
Some viruses cause no apparent changes to the infected cell. Cells in which the virus is latent and inactive show few signs of infection and often function normally. This causes persistent infections and the virus is often dormant for many months or years. This is often the case with herpes viruses.
Viruses, such as Epstein-Barr virus often cause cells to proliferate without causing malignancy, but viruses, such as papillomaviruses are an established cause of cancer. When a cell's DNA is damaged by a virus and if the cell cannot repair this often triggers apoptosis. One of the results of apoptosis is destruction of the damaged DNA by the cell itself. Some viruses have mechanisms to limit apoptosis so that the host cell does not die before progeny viruses have been produced. HIV, for example, does this.
Viruses and diseases
- For more examples of diseases caused by viruses see Wikipedia's List of infectious diseases
Human diseases caused by viruses include the cold, the flu, chickenpox and cold sores. Serious diseases such as Ebola, AIDS and influenza are also caused by viruses. Many viruses cause little or no disease and are said to be "benign". The more harmful viruses are described as virulent. Viruses cause different diseases depending on the types of cell that they infect. Some viruses can cause life-long or chronic infections where the viruses continue to reproduce in the body despite the host's defence mechanisms. This is common in hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infections. People chronically infected with a virus are known as carriers. They serve as important reservoirs of the virus. If there is a high proportion of carriers in a given population, a disease is said to be endemic.
There are many ways in which viruses spread from host to host but each species of virus uses only one or two. Many viruses that infect plants are carried by organisms; such organisms are called vectors. Some viruses that infect animals and humans are also spread by vectors, usually blood-sucking insects.

Besides these traditional roles, it appears that multiple proteins of the DexD/H-box helicase family are associated with viral components and/or have alternative effects on viral propagation (56–58). For instance, DDX3 shows antiviral functions against vaccinia virus, DENV, and HBV (59–61), but is of benefit for HCV and HIV infection (62, 63). In addition, DDX1 interacts with the nsp3 of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus and enhances viral multiplication (64). The interaction of DDX1 with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Rev protein is involved in the regulation of virus replication (65). In the present study, the knockdown and ectopic expression of DDX1 demonstrated that DDX1 had antiviral activity against TGEV replication (data not shown). Interestingly, earlier studies also showed an interaction between DDX1 with coronavirus (IBV and SARS-CoV) nsp14, and in contrast to TGEV, this interaction might enhance the replication of IBV (31). This difference suggests that DDX1 is not likely to be a general target against CoV infection.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the effect of DDX1 on progeny TGEV production was moderate (data not shown). Difference from other CoVs, such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV which antagonize IFN-I, TGEV infection induces IFN-I production, and a most recent paper showed that poly(I:C)-induced IFN-I responses could only inhibit TGEV replication in the early infection stage, but failed in the late infection stage (23). They also demonstrated that the activation of IFN-I responses by TGEV infection cannot inhibit viral replication. Our results are consistent with the conclusion proposed by Zhu and colleagues. In addition, it is surprising that the expression levels of IFN-β are paralleled with the increase of viral RNA during TGEV infection. These may explain why the effect of DDX1 on TGEV replication was moderate accompany with its significant role in IFN-β induction by TGEV. However, more studies are required to investigate the complex interaction between TGEV and IFNs.
In conclusion, our data demonstrate that TGEV infection induces IFN-β production and nsp14 is the most significant IFN-β inducer among the TGEV-encoded proteins.

How can we reduce the spread of viruses?
Masking, proper handwashing, use of hand sanitizers and social distancing reduce the spread of viruses of many viruses. Antiviral medications and vaccines can eliminate or reduce the severity of diseases caused by viruses.
Medicines used to treat bacterial infections do not kill viruses.
How do viral vaccines work?
Previously, viral vaccines contained weakened or dead viruses, with both forms being incapable of causing disease. Now, scientists have an additional tool in their toolkit, producing vaccines using a virus's genome sequence. The viral genome has the information needed to create viral proteins, the active component of the vaccine to which the immune system responds. When injected, these DNA or RNA molecules are used by the host to produce specific viral proteins, and the immune system then recognizes the viral proteins as foreign, sparking a response from multiple types of white blood cells.
One such class of white blood cells, called B cells, produces a particular type of protein called an antibody. Antibodies bind to molecules on the surface of the virus and neutralize the virus to prevent it from replicating.
Once the human body successfully produces antibodies against a virus, its arsenal is ready for defense when the immune system comes in contact with the same virus in the future.
Why do some viruses affect certain people more negatively than others?
The exact reason why viruses affect people in different ways is under active study. Researchers attribute it to a combination of genetic and environmental factors. People with existing health conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease or cancer, are more vulnerable to a severe viral infection.
Some individuals also have specific genomic variants that can influence how a virus interacts with their body. For example, some relatively rare genomic variants make people susceptible to severe viral and other infections. On the flip side, some genomic variants protect specific individuals from viral infections. Researchers continue to study these mechanisms, including the relationship between the level of viral infection and specific genomic variants.
Does our body have viral DNA that doesn’t cause disease?
Yes. The human genome contains a considerable amount of DNA that previously existed in viruses. These viral sequences are remnants of past viral infections. Most of these sequences originally came from retroviruses, a type of virus that can insert one copy of its genome into the DNA of a host organism (such as a human). As the host cells make copies of its own genome, it copies the viral DNA as well.

The production of viral miRNAs and the regulation of cellular Dicer levels during infection implicate RNA silencing mechanisms in both viral fitness as well as potential host defense strategies.
Stadler, BM. Interaction of a Mammalian Virus with Host RNA Silencing Pathways: A Dissertation. (2007). University of Massachusetts Medical School. GSBS Dissertations and Theses. Paper 322. https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/gsbs_diss/322
Rights and Permissions
Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved.

This review describes the contribution of noncytolytic mechanisms to the control of viral infections with a particular emphasis on the role of cytokines in these processes. It has long been known that most cell types in the body respond to an incoming viral infection by rapidly secreting antiviral cytokines such as interferon alpha/beta (IFN-alpha/beta). After binding to specific receptors on the surface of infected cells, IFN-alpha/beta has the potential to trigger the activation of multiple noncytolytic intracellular antiviral pathways that can target many steps in the viral life cycle, thereby limiting the amplification and spread of the virus and attenuating the infection. Clearance of established viral infections, however, requires additional functions of the immune response. The accepted dogma is that complete clearance of intracellular viruses by the immune response depends on the destruction of infected cells by the effector cells of the innate and adaptive immune system [natural killer (NK) cells and cytotoxic T cells (CTLs)]. This notion, however, has been recently challenged by experimental evidence showing that much of the antiviral potential of these cells reflects their ability to produce antiviral cytokines such as IFN-gamma and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha at the site of the infection. Indeed, these cytokines can purge viruses from infected cells noncytopathically as long as the cell is able to activate antiviral mechanisms and the virus is sensitive to them. Importantly, the same cytokines also control viral infections indirectly, by modulating the induction, amplification, recruitment, and effector functions of the immune response and by upregulating antigen processing and display of viral epitopes at the surface of infected cells. In keeping with these concepts, it is not surprising that a number of viruses encode proteins that have the potential to inhibit the antiviral activity of cytokines.

In a majority of cases, the production of interferons is induced in response to microbes such as viruses and bacteria and their products (viral glycoproteins, viral RNA, bacterial endotoxin, bacterial flagella, CpG sites), as well as mitogens and other cytokines, for example interleukin 1, interleukin 2, interleukin-12, tumor necrosis factor and colony-stimulating factor, that are synthesised in the response to the appearance of various antigens in the body. Their metabolism and excretion take place mainly in the liver and kidneys. They rarely pass the placenta but they can cross the blood-brain barrier.
The therapeutically used forms are denoted by Greek letters indicating their origin: leukocytes, fibroblasts, and lymphocytes for interferon-alpha, -beta and -gamma, respectively.
Viral induction of interferonsEdit
All classes of interferon are very important in fighting RNA virus infections. However, their presence also accounts for some of the host symptoms, such as sore muscles and fever. They are secreted when abnormally large amounts of dsRNA are found in a cell. dsRNA is normally present in very low quantities. The dsRNA acts like a trigger for the production of interferon (via Toll Like Receptor 3 (TLR 3), a pattern recognition receptor of the innate immune system which leads to activation of the transcription factor IRF3 and late phase NF kappa B). The gene that codes for this cytokine is switched on in an infected cell, and the interferon synthesized and secreted to surrounding cells.
As the original cell dies from the cytolytic RNA virus, thousands of viruses will infect nearby cells. However, these cells have received interferon, which essentially warns these other cells of the virus. They then start producing large amounts of a protein known as protein kinase R (or PKR). If a virus infects a cell that has been “pre-warned” by interferon, the PKR is indirectly activated by the dsRNA, and begins transferring phosphate groups (phosphorylating) to a protein known as eIF-2, a eukaryotic translation initiation factor. After phosphorylation, eIF2 forms an inactive complex with eIF2B, thereby leading to reduced translation initiation and reduced protein synthesis.

Abstract: Human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) dynamics reflect an intricate balance within the viruses’ host. The virus relies on host replication factors, but must escape or counter its host’s antiviral restriction factors. The interaction between the HIV-1 protein Vif and many cellular restriction factors from the APOBEC3 protein family is a prominent example of this evolutionary arms race. The viral infectivity factor (Vif) protein largely neutralizes APOBEC3 proteins, which can induce in vivo hypermutations in HIV-1 to the extent of lethal mutagenesis, and ensures the production of viable virus particles. HIV-1 also uses the APOBEC3-Vif interaction to modulate its own mutation rate in harsh or variable environments, and it is a model of adaptation in a coevolutionary setting. Both experimental evidence and the substantiation of the underlying dynamics through coevolutionary models are presented as complementary views of a coevolutionary arms race.
This is an open access article distributed under the
Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Export to BibTeX
MDPI and ACS Style
Münk, C.; Jensen, B.-E.O.; Zielonka, J.; Häussinger, D.; Kamp, C. Running Loose or Getting Lost: How HIV-1 Counters and Capitalizes on APOBEC3-Induced Mutagenesis through Its Vif Protein. Viruses 2012, 4, 3132-3161.
Münk C, Jensen B-EO, Zielonka J, Häussinger D, Kamp C. Running Loose or Getting Lost: How HIV-1 Counters and Capitalizes on APOBEC3-Induced Mutagenesis through Its Vif Protein. Viruses. 2012; 4(11):3132-3161.
Münk, Carsten; Jensen, Björn-Erik O.; Zielonka, Jörg; Häussinger, Dieter; Kamp, Christel. 2012. "Running Loose or Getting Lost: How HIV-1 Counters and Capitalizes on APOBEC3-Induced Mutagenesis through Its Vif Protein." Viruses 4, no. 11: 3132-3161.

In this regard, the measles virus, responsible for epidemic measles, has a unique interface with autophagy as the virus can induce multiple rounds of autophagy in the course of infection. These successive waves of autophagy result from distinct molecular pathways and seem associated with anti- and/or pro-measles virus consequences. In this review, we describe what the autophagy–measles virus interplay has taught us about both the biology of the virus and the mechanistic orchestration of autophagy.
171. 5. Celum, C. L. The Interaction between Herpes Sim- plex Virus and Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Her- pes, 2004; 1: 36A-44A. 6. Brown, Z.A., Selke, S., Zeh, J., Kopelman, J., Maslow,. A., Ashley, R.L., Watts, D.H., Berry, S., Herd, M. and.
Prangishvili, P.; Basta, P.; Garrett, Roger Antony
In this article we present our current knowledge about double-stranded (dsDNA) viruses infecting hyperthermophilic Crenarchaeaota, the organisms which predominate in hot terrestrial springs with temperatures over 80 °C. These viruses exhibit extraordinary diversity of morphotypes most of which have...
Wang, Pu; González, Marta; Barabási, Albert-László.
Standard operating systems and Bluetooth technology will be a trend for future cell phone features. These will enable cell phone viruses to spread either through SMS or by sending Bluetooth requests when cell phones are physically close enough. The difference in spreading methods gives these two types of viruses' different epidemiological characteristics. SMS viruses' spread is mainly based on people's social connections, whereas the spreading of Bluetooth viruses is affected by people's mobility patterns and population distribution. Using cell phone data recording calls, SMS and locations of more than 6 million users, we study the spread of SMS and Bluetooth viruses and characterize how the social network and the mobility of mobile phone users affect such spreading processes.
Müller, Viktor; Marée, Athanasius F.M.; Boer, R.J.

Tetherin, a cellular protein blocking viral release, is also differently counteracted by HIV-1 and HIV-2. In HIV-1, the anti-tetherin activity is conferred by Vpu, whereas in HIV-2, the intracytoplasmic portion of Env mediates this effect [28,29]. Another protein, the recently identified RNA-associated early-stage anti-viral factor (REAF), inhibits both HIV-1 and HIV-2 just after cell entry .
The restriction factor SAMHD1 blocks HIV replication by degrading intracellular dNTPs and HIV-1 RNA [31-37]. SAMHD1 inhibits reverse transcription in non-diving cells, such as monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and non-activated CD4+ lymphocytes [31-36]. In dividing cells such as activated CD4+ T cells, SAMHD1 is phosphorylated and does not restrict HIV-1 [38-40]. HIV-2 and some SIV strains encode the accessory protein Vpx, which degrades SAMHD1 and allows escape from this restriction, whereas HIV-1 lacks a Vpx-like activity. The anti-SAMHD1 activity is conserved in Vpx alleles isolated from viremic or aviremic HIV-2-infected individuals . It has been proposed that HIV-2, through the SAMHD1-degrading action of Vpx, may trigger a more efficient immune response by productively infecting dendritic cells (DCs) . HIV-1, in sparing SAMHD1, may avoid productive infection of DCs and thus limit the resulting protective type-I IFN response mounted by these cells [35,43-45]. In addition to degrading SAMHD1, Vpx may also inhibit the function of IRF-5 . Of note, HIV-1 and HIV-2 differentially interact with other target cells. The kinetics of HIV-1 and HIV-2 replication are different in human primary macrophage cultures . Exposure of plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs) to HIV-1 and HIV-2 differentially mature the cells into IFN-producing cells or Antigen Presenting Cells .
The exact role of Vpx during HIV-2 replication is not fully understood.

Host Defense and Viral Immune Evasion: A Proteomics Perspective
In Plain English:
Human cells and viruses are locked in a protein-based arms race for global domination: Will the cell’s defensive proteins successfully recognize viral DNA and alert the immune system? Or will the virus counter with proteins that stop the defensive proteins in their tracks? The answer is that both of these processes are happening all the time.
What it covered:
Full disclosure: I got to the talk about 10 minutes late after being stopped by a security guard (who wasn’t sure how to react to a 22-year-old with a backpack who could speak proteomics-babble but couldn’t produce a student ID). So I missed the first few slides of the talk, but when I arrived, Dr. Cristea was introducing the HMS research crowd to Gamma-Interferon-Inducible Protein 16 (IFI-16) and its role in the innate immune system.
Basically, IFI-16 is a protein (and if you’re talking about cell biology, a protein refers to any molecule that’s made out of amino acids. Which means that almost everything in the cell is a protein.*) that sends out a cellular distress call when it senses the presence of viral DNA. Dr. Cristea’s lab is working on figuring out how exactly IFI-16 identifies viral DNA and how viruses counter IFI-16’s tactics.
IFI-16’s arch-nemesis is a viral protein called UL83 (alias phosphoroprotein pp65). UL83 is expressed by many different viruses, but it’s best known for its role in human cytalomegalovirus infections. Even though the virus can replicate without UL83, UL83 helps the virus by silencing cellular distress signals (distress signals in response to pathogens are called interferons)** but scientists are still parsing out exactly how UL83/pp65 silences them.
In theory, IFI-16 (and other similar proteins) is a pretty foolproof system. IFI-16 binds directly to the viral DNA, and that binding event sets off a chemical chain reaction that causes the cell to start producing extra interferons. The immune cells zero in the interferon-spewing cells and kill them before the virus can finish replicating itself.
However, Cristea’s lab has found that UL83 stops the inteferon-inducing chain reaction by binding to IFI-16 after IFI-16 binds to the viral DNA.

I have as much respect for viruses’ ability to manipulate their host as the next guy, and I’m probably more of a fan of viral immune evasion than that next guy. But I still do think that coincidences do happen.
A paper from John Trowsdale and colleagues1 shows that Kaposi’s Sarcoma Herpesvirus (KSHV) destroys HFE, and they suggest that this is “a molecular mechanism targeted by KSHV to achieve a positive iron balance.” Without dissing their observations (which are perfectly convincing) I’m not entirely convinced by their conclusion. Still, it’s an interesting suggestion, and I’m keen to see some kind of followup to it.
The reason I’m not convinced is that this has the look of a spillover effect to me. We already know that KSHV attacks MHC class I molecules via its K3 and K5 molecules, and that it does so by targeting the cell-surface pool to lysosomes. This is a very familiar pattern; most, if not all, herpesviruses block MHC class I molecules. Although it’s been hard to formally prove “why” herpesviruses do this,2 the general assumption is that this allows the virus to at least partially avoid recognition by T cells, and this lets the virus survive better — perhaps because it builds a larger population very early, or perhaps because it is able to last longer late, or whatever.
At any rate, there’s a fairly simple and logical reason why it would make sense for KSHV to block MHC class I molecules, and as I say they do, in fact, do this. Now, why would they attack HFE? HFE is an iron-binding protein that’s involved in the regulation of iron metabolism. Why would KSHV be interested in iron metabolism?
Quite a few pathogens are actually very concerned about iron metabolism, of course. Bacteria generally need iron for their metabolism,3 and pathogenic bacteria have evolved ways of grabbing iron away from their hosts (while their hosts have evolved way of holding on tighter and tighter to that iron). But in general viruses, as opposed to bacteria, don’t have specific needs for iron. Trowsdale’s group makes the argument — and offers some experimental evidence — that KSHV does in fact want iron.

We discovered that HRV-16 amounts in IRAK-M OE versus EV NCI-H292 cells had been elevated at 4 h, and preserved at 24 h, however, not at 48 h. To check the consequences of exogenous anti-viral interferon on HRV-16 replication and.

In contrast, NS5A and E2 proteins are reported to enhance translation by inhibiting PKR functions [44, 45]. Therefore, it seems that during the course of HCV infection, there is a balance between inhibition and enhancement of host cell translation depending on the degree of activation/inhibition of the PKR pathway. Most of these studies have relied on systems that express HCV proteins individually. Nontheless, since all HCV proteins are potentially produced in vivo during virus infection of hepatocytes, it is important to use a full-length genome rather than individual HCV proteins to study the molecular mechanisms involved in virus-host cell interactions and in HCV pathogenesis. In our viral delivery system, the overall expression of structural and nonstructural HCV proteins by recombinant VT7-HCV7.9 virus did not reverse the action of PKR, since host cell translation was inhibited through phosphorylation of eIF-2α-S51 by the kinase. An incapability to prevent PKR activation by HCV polyprotein expression was reported by François and co-workers when they analysed the response to IFN of the human cell line UHCV-11 engineered to inducibly express the entire HCV genotype 1a polyprotein . Although we could not exclude the possibility that a certain level of inhibition of PKR by NS5A or E2 occurs at a much localized level, the resistance to IFN exhibited by some HCV genotypes as a result of viral protein expression, cannot be explained solely by inhibition of the negative control of PKR translation. It is possible that during the course of HCV infection, NS5A plays a role in inhibiting PKR locally at the site of HCV protein synthesis. NS5A may, however, participate in the blockade of IFN's antiviral action through another mechanism, such as the reported interaction with the Ras-associated Grb-2 protein . These results confirm the necessity to re-evaluate all types of interactions between any particular HCV protein and its cellular partner(s) in the context of expression of all of the HCV proteins. Consequently, as shown here by confocal microscopy (Figure 2), the HCV proteins are localized within aggregates in the cell cytoplasm which might influence their interaction with PKR, a protein found surrounding the nucleus, in microsomes and in the nucleolus [24, 48].

Thus, we hypothesize that NSs function(s) can be abolished by truncation of specific domains, and co-expression of nonfunctional NSs with intact NSs will result in the attenuation of NSs function by dominant-negative effect. Unexpectedly, we found that RVFV NSs truncated at aa. 6-30, 31-55, 56-80, 81-105, 106-130, 131-155, 156-180, 181-205, 206-230, 231-248 or 249-265 lack functions of IFN-β mRNA synthesis inhibition and degradation of PKR. Truncated NSs were less stable in infected cells, while nuclear localization was inhibited in NSs lacking either of aa.81-105, 106-130, 131-155, 156-180, 181-205, 206-230 or 231-248. Furthermore, none of truncated NSs had exhibited significant dominant-negative functions for NSs-mediated IFN-β suppression or PKR degradation upon co-expression in cells infected with RVFV. We also found that any of truncated NSs except for intact NSs does not interact with RVFV NSs even in the presence of intact C-terminus self-association domain. Our results suggest that conformational integrity of NSs is important for the stability, cellular localization and biological functions of RVFV NSs, and the co-expression of truncated NSs does not exhibit dominant-negative phenotype.
Jennifer A Head
Full Text Available Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV, belongs to genus Phlebovirus of the family Bunyaviridae, causes high rates of abortion and fetal malformation in infected ruminants as well as causing neurological disorders, blindness, or lethal hemorrhagic fever in humans. RVFV is classified as a category A priority pathogen and a select agent in the U.S., and currently there are no therapeutics available for RVF patients. NSs protein, a major virulence factor of RVFV, inhibits host transcription including interferon (IFN-β mRNA synthesis and promotes degradation of dsRNA-dependent protein kinase (PKR. NSs self-associates at the C-terminus 17 aa., while NSs at aa.210-230 binds to Sin3A-associated protein (SAP30 to inhibit the activation of IFN-β promoter.

The paramyxovirus Simian Trojan 5 (SV5) is an unhealthy inducer of interferon (IFN) secretion in every cell types tested up to now, including primary epithelial cells and primary individual myeloid dendritic cells. IFN secretion and Compact disc80 appearance, and there is a corresponding upsurge in number of contaminated cells. Similar results were noticed with inhibitors of mobile autophagy pathways, recommending which the SV5 activation of pDC needs usage of the cytoplasm and autophagic sampling of cytoplasmic items. These results have got implications for control of SV5 attacks in vivo as well as for advancement of SV5 being a vaccine vector. Launch The parainfluenza trojan Simian Trojan 5 (SV5) is normally an unhealthy activator of antiviral replies in individual cells (Choppin, 1964; Didcock et al 1999b; He et al., 2002; Wansley et al., 2005). SV5 encodes the V proteins as an inhibitor of web host cell antiviral replies, which contrasts with a great many other paramyxoviruses such as for example Sendai trojan (SeV) and measles trojan (MeV) which encode both a V proteins and a family group of C protein which counteract innate replies (Lamb and Parks, 2007). The indegent activation of web host 21102-95-4 manufacture cell replies by SV5 an infection is regarded as largely because of two main elements: the activities from the viral V proteins and control of viral RNA synthesis. A significant function from the SV5 V proteins may be the inhibition of IFN signaling, which takes place through V-mediated concentrating on of indication transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) for ubiquitylation and degradation (Didcock et al. 1999a). The SV5 V proteins also blocks activation from the IFN-beta promoter during trojan infection or pursuing transfection of dsRNA (Andrejeva et al, 2004; He et al., 2002). The paramyxovirus V proteins inhibits IFN-beta induction by concentrating on the IFN-inducible RNA helicase encoded with the melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (mda-5; Andrejeva et al., 2004).