JVI Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Mühlberger, E.
Right arrow Articles by Becker, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mühlberger, E.
Right arrow Articles by Becker, S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, March 1999, p. 2333-2342, Vol. 73, No. 3
0022-538X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of the Transcription and Replication Strategies of Marburg Virus and Ebola Virus by Using Artificial Replication Systems

Elke Mühlberger,* Michael Weik, Viktor E. Volchkov, Hans-Dieter Klenk, and Stephan Becker*

Institut für Virologie der Philipps-Universität Marburg, 35037 Marburg, Germany

Received 5 September 1998/Accepted 16 November 1998

The members of the family Filoviridae, Marburg virus (MBGV) and Ebola virus (EBOV), are very similar in terms of morphology, genome organization, and protein composition. To compare the replication and transcription strategies of both viruses, an artificial replication system based on the vaccinia virus T7 expression system was established for EBOV. Specific transcription and replication of an artificial monocistronic minireplicon was demonstrated by reporter gene expression and detection of the transcribed and replicated RNA species. As it was shown previously for MBGV, three of the four EBOV nucleocapsid proteins, NP, VP35, and L, were essential and sufficient for replication. In contrast to MBGV, EBOV-specific transcription was dependent on the presence of the fourth nucleocapsid protein, VP30. When EBOV VP30 was replaced by MBGV VP30, EBOV-specific transcription was observed but with lower efficiency. Exchange of NP, VP35, and L between the two replication systems did not lead to detectable reporter gene expression. It was further observed that neither MBGV nor EBOV were able to replicate the heterologous minigenomes. A chimeric minigenome, however, containing the EBOV leader and the MBGV trailer was encapsidated, replicated, transcribed, and packaged by both viruses.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Institut für Virologie der Philipps-Universität Marburg, Robert-Koch-Str. 17, 35037 Marburg, Germany. Phone: 6421-285433. Fax: 6421-285482. E-mail (E.M.): muehlber{at}mailer.uni-marburg.de. E-mail (S.B.): becker{at}mailer.uni-marburg.de.

Journal of Virology, March 1999, p. 2333-2342, Vol. 73, No. 3
0022-538X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


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 © 1999 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.