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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Isaacman-Beck, J.
Right arrow Articles by Collman, R. G.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Isaacman-Beck, J.
Right arrow Articles by Collman, R. G.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, August 2009, p. 8208-8220, Vol. 83, No. 16
0022-538X/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.00296-09
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Subtype C: Macrophage Tropism, Alternative Coreceptor Use, and the Molecular Anatomy of CCR5 Utilization{triangledown}

Jesse Isaacman-Beck,1 Emilia A. Hermann,1 Yanjie Yi,1 Sarah J. Ratcliffe,1 Joseph Mulenga,3 Susan Allen,2 Eric Hunter,2 Cynthia A. Derdeyn,2 and Ronald G. Collman1*

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,1 Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia,2 Zambia Blood Transfusion Service, Lusaka, Zambia3

Received 11 February 2009/ Accepted 2 June 2009

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 transmission selects for virus variants with genetic characteristics distinct from those of donor quasispecies, but the biological factors favoring their transmission or establishment in new hosts are poorly understood. We compared primary target cell tropisms and entry coreceptor utilizations of donor and recipient subtype C Envs obtained near the time of acute infection from Zambian heterosexual transmission pairs. Both donor and recipient Envs demonstrated only modest macrophage tropism, and there was no overall difference between groups in macrophage or CD4 T-cell infection efficiency. Several individual pairs showed donor/recipient differences in primary cell infection, but these were not consistent between pairs. Envs had surprisingly broad uses of GPR15, CXCR6, and APJ, but little or no use of CCR2b, CCR3, CCR8, GPR1, and CXCR4. Donors overall used GPR15 better than did recipients. However, while several individual pairs showed donor/recipient differences for GPR15 and/or other coreceptors, the direction of the differences was inconsistent, and several pairs had unique alternative coreceptor patterns that were conserved across the transmission barrier. CCR5/CCR2b chimeras revealed that recipients as a group were more sensitive than were donors to replacement of the CCR5 extracellular loops with corresponding regions of CCR2b, but significant differences in this direction were not consistent within pairs. These data show that sexual transmission does not select for enhanced macrophage tropism, nor for preferential use of any alternative coreceptor. Recipient Envs are somewhat more constrained than are donors in flexibility of CCR5 use, but this pattern is not universal for all pairs, indicating that it is not an absolute requirement.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 522 Johnson Pavilion, 36th & Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6060. Phone: (215) 898-0913. Fax: (215) 573-4446. E-mail: collmanr{at}mail.med.upenn.edu

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 10 June 2009.

Journal of Virology, August 2009, p. 8208-8220, Vol. 83, No. 16
0022-538X/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.00296-09
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»