BackgroundA major determinant of influenza infection is the presence of virus receptors on susceptible host cells to which the viral haemagglutinin is able to bind. Avian viruses preferentially bind to sialic acid α2,3-galactose (SAα2,3-Gal) linked receptors, whereas human strains bind to sialic acid α2,6-galactose (SAα2,6-Gal) linked receptors. To date, there has been no detailed account published on the distribution of SA receptors in the pig, a model host that is susceptible to avian and human influenza subtypes, thus with potential for virus reassortment. We examined the relative expression and spatial distribution of SAα2,3-GalG(1-3)GalNAc and SAα2,6-Gal receptors in the major organs from normal post-weaned pigs by binding with lectins Maackia amurensis agglutinins (MAA II) and Sambucus nigra agglutinin (SNA) respectively.ResultsBoth SAα2,3-Gal and SAα2,6-Gal receptors were extensively detected in the major porcine organs examined (trachea, lung, liver, kidney, spleen, heart, skeletal muscle, cerebrum, small intestine and colon). Furthermore, distribution of both SA receptors in the pig respiratory tract closely resembled the published data of the human tract. Similar expression patterns of SA receptors between pig and human in other major organs were found, with exception of the intestinal tract. Unlike the limited reports on the scarcity of influenza receptors in human intestines, we found increasing presence of SAα2,3-Gal and SAα2,6-Gal receptors from duodenum to colon in the pig.ConclusionsThe extensive presence of SAα2,3-Gal and SAα2,6-Gal receptors in the major organs examined suggests that each major organ may be permissive to influenza virus entry or infection. The high similarity of SA expression patterns between pig and human, in particular in the respiratory tract, suggests that pigs are not more likely to be potential hosts for virus reassortment than humans. Our finding of relative abundance of SA receptors in the pig intestines highlights a need for clarification on the presence of SA receptors in the human intestinal tract.

Avian influenza viruses are considered to be key contributors to the emergence of human influenza pandemics. A major determinant of infection is the presence of virus receptors on susceptible cells to which the viral haemagglutinin is able to bind. Avian viruses preferentially bind to sialic acid α2,3-galactose (SAα2,3-Gal) linked receptors, whereas human strains bind to sialic acid α2,6-galactose (SAα2,6-Gal) linked receptors. While ducks are the major reservoir for influenza viruses, they are typically resistant to the effects of viral infection, in contrast to the frequently severe disease observed in chickens. In order to understand whether differences in receptors might contribute to this observation, we studied the distribution of influenza receptors in organs of ducks and chickens using lectin histochemistry with linkage specific lectins and receptor binding assays with swine and avian influenza viruses. Although the intestinal epithelial cells of both species expressed only SAα2,3-Gal receptors, we found widespread presence of both SAα2,6-Gal and SAα2,3-Gal receptors in many organs of both chickens and ducks. Co-expression of both receptors may allow infection of cells with both avian and human viruses and so present a route to genetic reassortment. There was a marked difference in the primary receptor type in the trachea of chickens and ducks. In chicken trachea, SAα2,6-Gal was the dominant receptor type whereas in ducks SAα2,3-Gal receptors were most abundant. This suggests that chickens could be more important as an intermediate host for the generation of influenza viruses with increased ability to bind to SAα2,6-Gal receptors and thus greater potential for infection of humans. Chicken tracheal and intestinal epithelial cells also expressed a broader range of SAα2,3-Gal receptors (both β(1-4)GlcNAc and β(1-3)GalNAc subtypes) in contrast to ducks, which suggests that they may be able to support infection with a broader range of avian influenza viruses.

BackgroundOne requisite of quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) is to normalise the data with an internal reference gene that is invariant regardless of treatment, such as virus infection. Several studies have found variability in the expression of commonly used housekeeping genes, such as beta-actin (ACTB) and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), under different experimental settings. However, ACTB and GAPDH remain widely used in the studies of host gene response to virus infections, including influenza viruses. To date no detailed study has been described that compares the suitability of commonly used housekeeping genes in influenza virus infections. The present study evaluated several commonly used housekeeping genes [ACTB, GAPDH, 18S ribosomal RNA (18S rRNA), ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex, beta polypeptide (ATP5B) and ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial Fo complex, subunit C1 (subunit 9) (ATP5G1)] to identify the most stably expressed gene in human, pig, chicken and duck cells infected with a range of influenza A virus subtypes.ResultsThe relative expression stability of commonly used housekeeping genes were determined in primary human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs), pig tracheal epithelial cells (PTECs), and chicken and duck primary lung-derived cells infected with five influenza A virus subtypes. Analysis of qRT-PCR data from virus and mock infected cells using NormFinder and BestKeeper software programmes found that 18S rRNA was the most stable gene in HBECs, PTECs and avian lung cells.ConclusionsBased on the presented data from cell culture models (HBECs, PTECs, chicken and duck lung cells) infected with a range of influenza viruses, we found that 18S rRNA is the most stable reference gene for normalising qRT-PCR data. Expression levels of the other housekeeping genes evaluated in this study (including ACTB and GPADH) were highly affected by influenza virus infection and hence are not reliable as reference genes for RNA normalisation.

This study confirms the important role of the vet in providing information about the issue of dog weight but also suggests that providing verbal information is sometimes insufficient. The study also indicates the potential value of qualitative research methods to further understand client perception of complex animal care issues and highlights the need for further in-depth research.

No abstract