JVI Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, W C
Right arrow Articles by Fuller, A O
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lee, W C
Right arrow Articles by Fuller, A O
J Virol. 1993 September; 67(9): 5088-5097

Herpes simplex virus type 1 and pseudorabies virus bind to a common saturable receptor on Vero cells that is not heparan sulfate.

W C Lee and A O Fuller

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor 48109-0620.

ABSTRACT

Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and pseudorabies virus (PRV) infect different natural hosts but are very similar in structure, replicative cycle, and entry into cultured cells. We determined whether HSV-1 and PRV use the same cellular components during entry into Vero cells, which are highly susceptible to each virus but are not from native hosts for either. UV-inactivated virions of either HSV-1 or PRV could saturate cell surfaces to block infection of challenge HSV-1 or PRV. In the presence of saturating levels for infection of either virus, radiolabeled virus bound well and in a heparin-sensitive manner. This result shows that heparan sulfate proteoglycans on Vero cells are not the limiting cellular component. To identify the virus component required for blocking, we used an HSV-1 null mutant virus lacking gB, gD, or gH as blocking virus. Virions lacking gB were able to block infection of challenge virus to the same level as did virus containing gB. In contrast, virions lacking gD lost all and most of the ability to block infection of HSV-1 and PRV, respectively. HSV-1 lacking gH and PRV lacking gp50 also were less competent in blocking infection of challenge virus. We conclude that HSV-1 and PRV bind to a common receptor for infection of Vero cells. Although both viruses bind a heparin-like cell component on many cells, including Vero cells, they also attach to a different and limited cell surface component that is bound at least by HSV-1 gD and possibly gH and to some degree by PRV gp50 but not gB. These results clearly demonstrate binding of both HSV-1 and PRV to a common cell receptor that is not heparan sulfate and demonstrate that several types of attachment occur for both viruses during infectious entry.

J Virol. 1993 September; 67(9): 5088-5097




This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Mol. Cell. Biol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1993 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.