2002
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.76.10.5051-5061.2002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strength of Envelope Protein Interaction Modulates Cytopathicity of Measles Virus

Abstract: To understand the molecular determinants of measles virus (MV) cytopathicity, we have characterized mutant viruses exhibiting a more-extensive cell-to-cell fusion while maintaining efficient replication to high titers. A virus which is modified by the addition of an 8-amino-acid Flag epitope tag at the cytoplasmic tail of its H (for MV hemagglutinin) envelope glycoprotein replicates efficiently, has an increased cytopathicity, possesses a greater infectivity per particle, and has an altered protein composition… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

9
106
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(116 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
9
106
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The first example is described as a clamp or dissociation model, which adheres to the premise that the attachment glycoprotein restrains F in a nonfusogenic or metastable conformation and that upon receptor engagement the attachment protein dissociates from F, initiating the conformational changes in F leading to its postfusion configuration and in so doing facilitates the membrane merger process. The clamp or dissociation model is largely supported with data from an extensive analysis of measles virus (MeV) (24,60) and also the henipaviruses (1, 7), whereby membrane fusion activity is inversely correlated with the F to H or G avidity. In contrast, a second alternative association, or provocateur, model is suggested, which implies that the F association with its attachment glycoprotein partner, as in the case of HN, forms a complex at the cell surface only in the presence of receptor, and this scenario is supported by data showing that mutations which alter receptor binding decrease both membrane fusion activity and the F-HN interaction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…The first example is described as a clamp or dissociation model, which adheres to the premise that the attachment glycoprotein restrains F in a nonfusogenic or metastable conformation and that upon receptor engagement the attachment protein dissociates from F, initiating the conformational changes in F leading to its postfusion configuration and in so doing facilitates the membrane merger process. The clamp or dissociation model is largely supported with data from an extensive analysis of measles virus (MeV) (24,60) and also the henipaviruses (1, 7), whereby membrane fusion activity is inversely correlated with the F to H or G avidity. In contrast, a second alternative association, or provocateur, model is suggested, which implies that the F association with its attachment glycoprotein partner, as in the case of HN, forms a complex at the cell surface only in the presence of receptor, and this scenario is supported by data showing that mutations which alter receptor binding decrease both membrane fusion activity and the F-HN interaction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…The role of the receptor binding protein has been considered to be mainly repressive for viruses such as measles virus and NiV, where clamping the F protein prevents it from assuming a postfusion structure before the virus engages its proteinaceous receptor (10,12,36,47,(57)(58)(59)(60)(61). In the case of sialic acid binding receptor binding paramyxoviruses, such as HPIV and NDV, en- viruses engage receptor, the receptor binding proteins stabilize the F protein to prevent premature activation, and the switch to an active role in triggering the F protein to fuse occurs upon receptor engagement (17).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various evidence has been accumulated indicating that subtle differences in the envelope proteins of MV can play a role in altering the tropism, virus uptake, cell-to-cell fusion and pathogenicity (Bartz et al, 1996;Bieback et al, 2002;Hsu et al, 1998;Johnston et al, 1999;Lecouturier et al, 1996;Moeller et al, 2001;Moll et al, 2001;Ohgimoto et al, 2001;Plemper et al, 2002;Shibahara et al, 1994;Takeuchi et al, 2002). To investigate the molecular basis for the differential spread of MV wild-types in cultures of HUVECs, we will further analyse the sequences of the envelope genes of the MV wildtypes and intend functional studies with corresponding recombinant viruses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%