Literature DB >> 3378587

Host cell-mediated selection of influenza A (H3N2) virus variant subpopulations: lack of association between antigenic and receptor-binding properties.

R Pyhälä1, L Pyhälä, P Pekkala.   

Abstract

During the outbreak of influenza due to A (H3N3) viruses in Finland in 1985/6 virus pairs were isolated from the same clinical specimens in embryonated hens' eggs (CE) and in canine kidney cell cultures (MDCK). Some of these isolates, the E and M pairs, were distinguished by their reactions in haemagglutination inhibition (HI) tests carried out using polyclonal antisera, and by receptor-binding properties, as evidenced by differences in their elution activity from erythrocytes. Passage of the E- and M-virus isolates in the foreign host affected their serological characteristics, but the E virus did not convert to an M-like virus and the M virus did not convert to an E-like virus. Returning the viruses to grow in the host used for their isolation changed the serological reactions so that they were once more close to the reactions of the original isolates. This contrasts with the changes in receptor-binding properties. Rapid elution from hen erythrocytes, which has been described as a property of viruses binding to the SA alpha 2,3Gal sequence in preference to SA alpha 2,6Gal, characterized the virus passages grown solely in MDCK cell cultures. Cultivation of the M virus in CE, at any stage of its passage history, made the virus irreversibly incapable of elution. The M virus was more sensitive than the E virus to HI antibodies against heterologous viruses of the H3N2 subtype, and, when used as an antigen in HI serology, it more frequently (90% vs. 69%; P less than 0.01) detected diagnostic antibody responses in patients infected with viruses of this subtype in 1985/6. Use of antigens with a different passage history in HI serology provided evidence that this superiority, which may be due to the ability of the virus to pick out anamnestic antibody responses, is unrelated to the receptor-binding peculiarity of the M virus under consideration. The results support the concept that the host cell can select a diversity of virus variant subpopulations from a single clinical specimen during isolation and subsequent cultivation procedures. Moreover, the MDCK-grown influenza viruses may correspond better than the egg-grown isolates to the natural epidemic viruses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3378587      PMCID: PMC2249363          DOI: 10.1017/s0950268800067248

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiol Infect        ISSN: 0950-2688            Impact factor:   2.451


  17 in total

1.  Intraepidemic heterogeneity of influenza A (H3N2) viruses in 1985: antigenic analysis and sensitivity to non-specific inhibitors.

Authors:  R Pyhälä; L Pyhälä; R Visakorpi
Journal:  Med Biol       Date:  1986

2.  Structural changes in the haemagglutinin which accompany egg adaptation of an influenza A(H1N1) virus.

Authors:  J S Robertson; J S Bootman; R Newman; J S Oxford; R S Daniels; R G Webster; G C Schild
Journal:  Virology       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 3.616

3.  What is the true nature of epidemic influenza virus and how do new epidemic viruses spread?

Authors:  J S Oxford
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 2.451

4.  Antigenic heterogeneity among influenza A(H3N2) field isolates during an outbreak in 1982/83, estimated by methods of numerical taxonomy.

Authors:  W E Beyer; N Masurel
Journal:  J Hyg (Lond)       Date:  1985-02

5.  Different cell-surface receptor determinants of antigenically similar influenza virus hemagglutinins.

Authors:  S M Carroll; H H Higa; J C Paulson
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  1981-08-25       Impact factor: 5.157

6.  Host cell-mediated variation in H3N2 influenza viruses.

Authors:  J M Katz; C W Naeve; R G Webster
Journal:  Virology       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 3.616

7.  Evidence for host-cell selection of influenza virus antigenic variants.

Authors:  G C Schild; J S Oxford; J C de Jong; R G Webster
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1983 Jun 23-29       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Serological studies with influenza A(H1N1) viruses cultivated in eggs or in a canine kidney cell line (MDCK).

Authors:  J S Oxford; T Corcoran; R Knott; J Bates; O Bartolomei; D Major; R W Newman; P Yates; J Robertson; R G Webster
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 9.408

9.  The receptor-binding and membrane-fusion properties of influenza virus variants selected using anti-haemagglutinin monoclonal antibodies.

Authors:  P S Daniels; S Jeffries; P Yates; G C Schild; G N Rogers; J C Paulson; S A Wharton; A R Douglas; J J Skehel; D C Wiley
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 11.598

10.  Studies on the adaptation of influenza viruses to MDCK cells.

Authors:  R Rott; M Orlich; H D Klenk; M L Wang; J J Skehel; D C Wiley
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  1984-12-20       Impact factor: 11.598

View more
  3 in total

1.  Marmoset lymphoblastoid cells as a sensitive host for isolation of measles virus.

Authors:  F Kobune; H Sakata; A Sugiura
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 5.103

2.  Receptor specificity of subtype H1 influenza A viruses isolated from swine and humans in the United States.

Authors:  Li-Mei Chen; Pierre Rivailler; Jaber Hossain; Paul Carney; Amanda Balish; Ijeoma Perry; C Todd Davis; Rebecca Garten; Bo Shu; Xiyan Xu; Alexander Klimov; James C Paulson; Nancy J Cox; Sabrina Swenson; James Stevens; Amy Vincent; Marie Gramer; Ruben O Donis
Journal:  Virology       Date:  2011-02-18       Impact factor: 3.616

3.  High expression levels of influenza virus receptors in airway of the HBV-transgenic mice.

Authors:  Jiajun Yang; Hao Li; Liyuan Jia; Xianchun Lan; Yuhui Zhao; Huijie Bian; Zheng Li
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 2.451

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.