Effect of Mosquito Salivary Gland Treatment on Vesicular Stomatitis New Jersey Virus Replication and Interferon α/β Expression In Vitro

Limesand, Kirsten H.; Higgs, Stephen; Pearson, Leonard; Beaty, Barry J.

doi:10.1603/0022-2585-40.2.199

Cited by 50 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to these cytokines, both type 1 and type 2 IFNs are suppressed at the site of virus inoculation when SGE is present ). This inhibition of IFN expression is supported by a complimentary in vitro study, which revealed by ribonuclease protection assay that IFN-α2 expression was depressed in vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-infected L929 cultures supplemented with SGE (Limesand et al 2003). The contribution of type I IFN towards recovery from infection and defence against arboviruses has been demonstrated in vivo by the therapeutic and prophylactic effects of administration of IFN-inducers or IFN (Haahr 1971, Taylor et al 1980, Vargin et al 1977.…”

Section: Immunomodulation In the Context Of Arbovirus Infectionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Follow-up in vitro studies demonstrated a significant increase in viral growth in Ae. triseriatus SGE-treated mouse fibroblast cells as compared to untreated controls and suggested that the mechanism of VSV enhancement might be attributed to mosquito saliva-induced suppression of type I IFN expression (Limesand et al 2003). …”

Section: Mosquito Associated Potentiation Of Arbovirus Transmission Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The enhancement of arbovirus transmission and disease by mosquito saliva is associated with modulation of the host immune response

Schneider

Higgs

2008

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygi

225

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYArthropod-borne viruses have emerged as a major human health concern. Viruses transmitted by mosquitoes are the cause of the most serious and widespread arbovirus diseases worldwide and are ubiquitous in both feral and urban settings. Arboviruses, including dengue and West Nile virus are injected into vertebrates within mosquito saliva during mosquito feeding. Mosquito saliva contains anti-haemostatic, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory molecules that facilitate the acquisition of a blood-meal. Collectively, studies investigating the effects of mosquito saliva on the vertebrate immune response suggest that at high concentrations salivary proteins are immmunosuppressive, whereas lower concentrations modulate the immune response; specifically, T H 1 and antiviral cytokines are down-regulated, while T H 2 cytokines are unaffected or amplified. As a consequence, mosquito saliva can impair the anti-viral immune response thus affecting viral infectiousness and host survival. Mounting evidence suggests that this is a mechanism whereby arbovirus pathogenicity is enhanced. In a range of disease models, including various hosts, mosquito species, and arthropodborne viruses, mosquito saliva and/or feeding is associated with a potentiation of virus infection. Compared to arbovirus infection initiated in absence of the mosquito or its saliva, infection including mosquito saliva leads to an increase in virus transmission, host susceptibility, viraemia, disease progression, and mortality.Keywords arthropod-borne virus; mosquito saliva; immunomodulation; disease enhancement Most arthropod-borne (arbo)viruses of public health significance are mosquito-borne, and thus transmitted to vertebrates via the feeding of an infected mosquito. For a mosquito to

show abstract

Section: Immunomodulation In the Context Of Arbovirus Infectionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Mosquito Associated Potentiation Of Arbovirus Transmission Amentioning

confidence: 99%

The enhancement of arbovirus transmission and disease by mosquito saliva is associated with modulation of the host immune response

Schneider

Higgs

2008

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygi

225

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, mDCs are different from many other cell types, such as fibroblasts, since they can rapidly respond to the incoming virus and do not require viral replication to initiate a type I IFN response (15), which may make these cells less susceptible to virally encoded interferon antagonists than other cell types. Therefore, other factors, such as immune-suppressive components of mosquito saliva, may also promote transmission to the vertebrate host (23,24,37). However, whether the virus derived from the mosquito differs from virus derived from mammalian cells in its ability to induce an antiviral response in mDCs or other cell types has not been evaluated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Induction of Type I Interferon Responses in Myeloid Dendritic Cells by Mosquito and Mammalian-Cell-Derived Alphaviruses

Shabman¹,

Morrison²,

Moore

et al. 2007

J Virol

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dendritic cells (DCs) are an important early target cell for many mosquito-borne viruses, and in many cases mosquito-cell-derived arboviruses more efficiently infect DCs than viruses derived from mammalian cells. However, whether mosquito-cell-derived viruses differ from mammalian-cell-derived viruses in their ability to induce antiviral responses in the infected dendritic cell has not been evaluated. In this report, alphaviruses, which are mosquito-borne viruses that cause diseases ranging from encephalitis to arthritis, were used to determine whether viruses grown in mosquito cells differed from mammalian-cell-derived viruses in their ability to induce type I interferon (IFN) responses in infected primary dendritic cells. Consistent with previous results, mosquito-cell-derived Ross River virus (mos-RRV) and Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (mos-VEE) exhibited enhanced infection of primary myeloid dendritic cells (mDCs) compared to mammalian-cellderived virus preparations. However, unlike the mammalian-cell-derived viruses, which induced high levels of type I IFN in the infected mDC cultures, mos-RRV and mos-VEE were poor IFN inducers. Furthermore, the poor IFN induction by mos-RRV contributed to the enhanced infection of mDCs by mos-RRV. These results suggest that the viruses initially delivered by the mosquito vector differ from those generated in subsequent rounds of replication in the host, not just with respect to their ability to infect dendritic cells but also in their ability to induce or inhibit antiviral type I IFN responses. This difference may have an important impact on the mosquito-borne virus's ability to successfully make the transition from the arthropod vector to the vertebrate host.

show abstract

“…Clear evidence of the involvement of mosquito saliva in enhancement of viral pathogenesis exists (Edwards et al, 1998;Osorio et al, 1996;Limesand et al, 2003), but no unequivocal studies have yet shown a specific enhancement of malaria parasite infections. Malaria parasites do appear to damage the glands and impair normal secretory processes.…”

Section: Parasite-salivary Gland Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blocking malaria parasite invasion of mosquito salivary glands

James

2003

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of malaria parasites in mosquitoes involves significant interactions of the pathogens with host tissues. As detailed by other authors in this volume, ookinetes must successfully negotiate the midgut environment by avoiding digestive enzymes and the developing peritrophic matrix to penetrate and lodge at the basal surface of the midgut epithelium. The resulting oocysts must avoid the host immune responses as the sporozoites develop within. Finally, the sporozoites must navigate the open circulatory system, avoiding humoral and cellular immune responses, to reach and invade their final destination in the mosquito host, the salivary glands. The specificity of these parasite-vector interactions makes them attractive targets for those working to develop synthetic refractory mechanisms in mosquitoes. Some years ago, we proposed to block malaria transmission by interfering with sporozoites in salivary glands (James et al., 1989). This could be achieved by disabling parasites once they invaded the salivary glands, or by blocking the initial invasion. As the tools for testing this strategy have evolved over the last few years, the focus has shifted from the former to the latter approach. Mosquito salivary glandsThe salivary glands of adult mosquitoes are sexually dimorphic and it is clear that the structural and functional differences between the male and female organs reflect the ability of the latter to engage successfully in hematophagy (James, 1994;Stark and James, 1996). The glands are paired structures and are much larger in females than in males (Fig.·1). Each gland consists of three lobes that are attached to a common salivary duct. The duct in culicine mosquitoes extends the length of each lobe, whereas in anophelines, it extends only part-way along the lobe. Each lobe comprises a secretory epithelium surrounding a duct into which saliva is released. The cells in each lobe are organized into a singlelayer epithelium with characteristic basal and apical surfaces. The basal ends of the epithelial cells form the outside surface of the glands and are in contact with a basement membrane that provides the cohesiveness of the glands.In general, the three lobes of male salivary glands appear similar to one another and likely all have the same secretory capabilities (James, 1994). Female glands are differentiated into two lateral and one medial lobes. The proximal regions of the lateral lobes in females express and secrete salivary gland products such as amylases and α1-4 glucosidase that are involved in sugar feeding, and these lobes appear to overlap functionally the male salivary glands (James, 1994;Arcá et al., 1999). In contrast, the medial lobe and distal-lateral lobes express genes whose products such as apyrases, anticoagulants and vasodilatory agents are involved in hematophagy (Champagne et al., 1995;Smartt et al., 1995;Beerntsen et al., 1999;Stark and James, 1998;Arcá et al., 1999).In addition to their gene expression characteristics, the surface properties of the different salivary gland lobes...

show abstract

Effect of Mosquito Salivary Gland Treatment on Vesicular Stomatitis New Jersey Virus Replication and Interferon α/β Expression In Vitro

Cited by 50 publications

References 30 publications

The enhancement of arbovirus transmission and disease by mosquito saliva is associated with modulation of the host immune response

The enhancement of arbovirus transmission and disease by mosquito saliva is associated with modulation of the host immune response

Differential Induction of Type I Interferon Responses in Myeloid Dendritic Cells by Mosquito and Mammalian-Cell-Derived Alphaviruses

Blocking malaria parasite invasion of mosquito salivary glands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About