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 Palermo, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by Parrish, C. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Palermo, L. M.
Right arrow Articles by Parrish, C. R.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, August 2003, p. 8915-8923, Vol. 77, No. 16
0022-538X/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JVI.77.16.8915-8923.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Residues in the Apical Domain of the Feline and Canine Transferrin Receptors Control Host-Specific Binding and Cell Infection of Canine and Feline Parvoviruses

Laura M. Palermo, Karsten Hueffer, and Colin R. Parrish*

James A. Baker Institute, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

Received 12 March 2003/ Accepted 28 May 2003

Canine parvovirus (CPV) and feline panleukopenia virus (FPV) capsids bind to the transferrin receptors (TfRs) of their hosts and use these receptors to infect cells. The binding is partially host specific, as FPV binds only to the feline TfR, while CPV binds to both the canine and feline TfRs. The host-specific binding is controlled by a combination of residues within a raised region of the capsid. To define the TfR structures that interact with the virus, we altered the apical domain of the feline or canine TfR or prepared chimeras of these receptors and tested the altered receptors for binding to FPV or CPV capsids. Most changes in the apical domain of the feline TfR did not affect binding, but replacing Leu221 with Ser or Asp prevented receptor binding to either FPV or CPV capsids, while replacing Leu221 with Lys resulted in a receptor that bound only to CPV but not to FPV. Analysis of recombinants of the feline and canine TfRs showed that sequences controlling CPV-specific binding were within the apical domain and that more than one difference between these receptors determined the CPV-specific binding of the canine TfR. Single changes within the canine TfR which removed a single amino acid insertion or which eliminated a glycosylation site gave that receptor the expanded ability to bind to FPV and CPV. In some cases, binding of capsids to mutant receptors did not result in infection, suggesting a structural role for the receptor in cell infection by the viruses.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: James A. Baker Institute, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. Phone: (607) 256-5649. Fax: (607) 256-5608. E-mail: crp3{at}cornell.edu.

Journal of Virology, August 2003, p. 8915-8923, Vol. 77, No. 16
0022-538X/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JVI.77.16.8915-8923.2003
Copyright © 2003, 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 © 2003 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.