| Literature DB >> 26910902 |
Lyndsey M Linke1,2, Jeffrey Wilusz3, Kristy L Pabilonia4,3, Johannes Fruehauf5, Roberta Magnuson4,6, Francisco Olea-Popelka6, Joni Triantis4,6,7, Gabriele Landolt6, Mo Salman4,6.
Abstract
Influenza A viruses pose significant health and economic threats to humans and animals. Outbreaks of avian influenza virus (AIV) are a liability to the poultry industry and increase the risk for transmission to humans. There are limitations to using the AIV vaccine in poultry, creating barriers to controlling outbreaks and a need for alternative effective control measures. Application of RNA interference (RNAi) techniques hold potential; however, the delivery of RNAi-mediating agents is a well-known obstacle to harnessing its clinical application. We introduce a novel antiviral approach using bacterial vectors that target avian mucosal epithelial cells and deliver (small interfering RNA) siRNAs against two AIV genes, nucleoprotein (NP) and polymerase acidic protein (PA). Using a red fluorescent reporter, we first demonstrated vector delivery and intracellular expression in avian epithelial cells. Subsequently, we demonstrated significant reductions in AIV shedding when applying these anti-AIV vectors prophylactically. These antiviral vectors provided up to a 10,000-fold reduction in viral titers shed, demonstrating in vitro proof-of-concept for using these novel anti-AIV vectors to inhibit AIV shedding. Our results indicate this siRNA vector technology could represent a scalable and clinically applicable antiviral technology for avian and human influenza and a prototype for RNAi-based vectors against other viruses.Entities:
Keywords: Avian influenza; Bacterial vector; Influenza antiviral; Transkingdom RNAi; siRNA delivery
Year: 2016 PMID: 26910902 PMCID: PMC4766140 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-016-0187-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Fig. 1Diagrammatic representation of the anti-AIV vector’s mechanism of action against AIV in an avian epithelial cell
Top sense-strand sequence of NP and PA siRNAs, the location of the target sequence in the corresponding NP or PA virus gene and siRNA specificity with the original AIV gene
| Gene (bp region) | Sense strand sequence (5′–3′) |
|---|---|
| NP-siRNA | GGA TCT TAT TTC TTC GGA G-dTdT |
| H8N4 NP (1486–1504) | GGA TCT TAT TTC TTC GGA G |
| H6N2 NP (1453–1471) | GGA TCT TAT TTC TTC GGA G |
| PA-siRNA | GCA ATT GAG GAG TGC CTG A-dTdT |
| H8N4 PA (2077–2095) | GCA ATT GAG GAG TGC CTG A |
| H6N2 PA (2065–2083) | GCA ATT GAG GAG TGC CTG A |
The AIV strain and corresponding virus gene targeted by the NP or PA siRNA construct
| Virus strain | Subtype | Gene | Accession |
|---|---|---|---|
| A/chicken/Texas/473-2/2010 | H6N2 | NP |
|
| A/turkey/Colorado/235497/2003 | H8N4 | NP |
|
| A/chicken/Texas/473-2/2010 | H6N2 | PA |
|
| A/turkey/Colorado/235497/2003 | H8N4 | PA |
|
Fig. 2mRNA expression of β-actin and β(1) integrin in LMH cells cultured in normal growth medium (GM), inoculation medium without virus (IM), or infection medium six or 24 hpi with H8N4 virus
Fig. 3Vector uptake by chicken LMH cells assessed at two and 24 h post invasion with the anti-AIV/scramble vector tagged with RFP. LMH cells incubated with the RFP-vector at two doses (high = 7.8 × 105 CFU/mL and low = 1.95 × 105 CFU/mL). Nuclei were stained with DAPI. Magnification, X40
Fig. 4Flow cytometry data for LMH cells not treated with the RFP-vector (LMH only), LMH cells stably expressing RFP-vector (RFP-vector treated LMH), and RFP-vector only. LMH cells were treated with 7.8 × 105 CFU/mL RFP-vector and intracellular RFP expression was assessed at 20 and 36 h post vector invasion. RFP fluorescent signal was normalized to the RFP-vector only expression and invasion efficiencies (%) are depicted as number of cells expressing RFP out of the total number of cells counted
Anti-AIV vector protection in chicken LMH cells as measured by log10 and fold-reductions in viral shedding titers compared to untreated controls
| Sample |
| Adjusted meana (treated) | 95 % CI (treated) | Adjusted mean (PC) | 95 % CI (PC) |
| Log10 reductionc | Fold reductiond |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H8N4 virus MOI 0.01 | ||||||||
| Anti-AIV/NP | 9 | 1.1 | (0.0, 2.6) | 4.9 | (3.7, 6.2) | <0.001 | 3.8 | 6310 |
| Anti-AIV/PA | 9 | 3.0 | (2.1, 3.8) | 5.5 | (4.6, 6.4) | <0.001 | 2.5 | 316 |
| Anti-AIV/cocktail | 9 | 0.9 | (0.0, 2.1) | 4.9 | (3.9, 6.0) | <0.001 | 4.0 | 10,000 |
| Anti-AIV/scramble | 10 | 2.8 | (2.0, 3.5) | 4.9 | (4.1, 5.8) | <0.001 | 2.1 | 126 |
| H6N2 virus MOI 0.01 | ||||||||
| Anti-AIV/NP | 9 | 4.7 | (3.1, 6.2) | 6.3 | (4.8, 8.0) | 0.043 | 1.6 | 39.8 |
| Anti-AIV/PA | 9 | 4.9 | (3.6, 6.2) | 6.3 | (4.8, 7.9) | 0.031 | 1.4 | 25.1 |
| Anti-AIV/cocktail | 9 | 4.4 | (3.0, 5.9) | 6.3 | (4.9, 7.8) | 0.013 | 1.9 | 79.4 |
| Anti-AIV/scramble | 9 | 5.5 | (4.6, 6.3) | 6.3 | (5.3, 7.4) | 0.053 | 0.8 | 6.3 |
Mean viral titers were adjusted by day, using experimental day as a fixed effect
aExpressed as mean log10 TCID50/mL adjusted by day
bComparing adjusted mean log10 TCID50/mL from treated to untreated PC samples (p < 0.05)
cLog10 reduction in mean infectious titer compared to untreated control
dFold reduction in infectious titer (geometric mean) compared to untreated control