Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, October 1998, p. 8362-8364, Vol. 72, No. 10
Institute of Virology and Environmental
Microbiology, Oxford OX1 3SR, United Kingdom
Received 2 April 1998/Accepted 16 June 1998
The interferon-induced mouse Mx1 protein has intrinsic antiviral
activity against orthomyxoviruses, including Thogoto virus. Thus,
Mx1+ A2G mice are apparently resistant to
infection following needle- or tick-borne virus challenge. However,
tick-borne challenge and, to a lesser degree, injection of virus mixed
with tick salivary gland extract resulted in virus transmission to
uninfected ticks feeding on the A2G mice. The data indicate that
immunomodulatory components in tick saliva can overcome a natural
antiviral mechanism.
Resistance of A2G mice to influenza
viruses, discovered by Lindenmann (10), is determined by a
single gene, Mx1, which is structurally altered in influenza
virus-susceptible mice. Mx1 gene expression is induced upon
viral infection through the action of type I interferon and encodes a
nuclear GTPase, the Mx1 protein (14). Little is known about
the mode of action of the Mx1 protein in antiviral activity, except
that it interferes with influenza virus primary transcription
(8). Recently, it was shown that Mx1 also inhibits the
tick-borne Thogoto virus (THOV) (4), which has been
classified in a new genus of the Orthomyxoviridae family
(13).
Nonviremic transmission is defined as transmission of arboviruses
between infected and uninfected ticks cofeeding on a vertebrate host
that has no detectable, or very low levels of, viremia (12). Nonviremic transmission of THOV between Rhipicephalus
appendiculatus ticks, the principal vector species of THOV, was
first reported to occur on guinea pigs (5). The aim of this
investigation was to determine whether nonviremic transmission of THOV
occurs on Mx1+ A2G mice. This model has
advantages over the guinea pig model used previously. First, A2G mice
are fully resistant to THOV delivered by either intraperitoneal (3 × 105 PFU), intracerebral (103 PFU), or
subcutaneous (s.c.) (3 × 103 PFU) injection, whereas
similarly challenged Mx1 Virus injection.
In initial experiments, we tested whether
THOV injection of A2G mice, compared to similarly challenged BALB/c
mice, results in virus transmission to feeding, uninfected R. appendiculatus larvae. Stock virus (Thogoto/SiAr/126/72) was
prepared in BHK-21 (baby hamster kidney) cells and stored at
0022-538X/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Mx1-Based Resistance to Thogoto Virus in A2G Mice
Is Bypassed in Tick-Mediated Virus Delivery
and
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
BALB/c mice develop
high levels of viremia and succumb to an acute degenerative hepatitis
characteristic of THOV infection (4). Moreover, A2G mice do
not sustain detectable levels of virus replication. By contrast, guinea
pigs support low levels of THOV replication sufficient to account for
low levels of virus transmission to feeding ticks (5).
Second, the genetic basis of the resistance to THOV in A2G mice is well
described (4), while nothing is known about the mechanisms
underlying resistance in guinea pigs. However, a disadvantage of using
mice is that the feeding success of R. appendiculatus
maintained as a laboratory colony is reduced compared to that of guinea
pigs and, consequently, a greater number of animals is required for
experimentation. All of the ticks were retained within one chamber to
maximize the recovery of fed ticks.
70°C
at 107 to 108 PFU/ml as determined by plaque
assay in African green monkey kidney (Vero) cells. Female mice (5 to 7 weeks old) were injected s.c. with 5 × 103 PFU of
THOV and then immediately exposed to approximately 100 larvae. The
ticks were retained on the mice inside neoprene chambers secured on the
shaved backs of the animals by using nonirritant latex glue. After 3 days, the larvae had fully engorged and detached, after which the ticks
were collected and the mice were killed humanely. The fed larvae were
kept for 10 days to allow the acquired virus to multiply and then
homogenized in pools of 10 and assessed for virus by plaque assay in
Vero cells. Infection levels of the mice were determined by assessing
virus content in systemic blood and in the target organs of THOV, the
liver and spleen (4). Virus was not detected in blood
samples of the A2G mice, and in BALB/c mice, viremic titers were
generally 3 orders of magnitude lower than in liver samples (data not
shown). All seven BALB/c mice developed infections with virus titers of
up to 3 × 105 PFU/g liver, and all of the animals
supported virus transmission to the feeding ticks (Tables
1 and 2).
In sharp contrast, none of 20 A2G mice showed evidence of infection or
allowed virus transmission to ticks (Tables 1 and 2). These results
demonstrate that A2G mice are resistant to THOV infection, which is
consistent with a previous report (4). The data further show
that nonviremic transmission does not occur on A2G mice in response to
s.c. needle-borne THOV challenge.
TABLE 1.
Transmission of THOV to R. appendiculatus larvae
TABLE 2.
Relative transmission coefficients
Cofeeding-tick-borne virus transmission. The ability of mice to support nonviremic transmission was tested by cofeeding infected nymphs (donors) and uninfected larvae (recipients) on the same animal. To obtain infected R. appendiculatus nymphs, larvae were infected per os by feeding on viremic hamsters and then allowed to molt to nymphs as described previously (1). Ten nymphs and approximately 100 larvae were added simultaneously to the same retainment chamber and allowed to feed until engorgement of the larvae (3 days). All of the BALB/c mice but one became infected, and all seven animals supported virus transmission to larvae (Tables 1 and 2). None of 15 A2G mice developed a disseminated infection, as assessed by titration of blood, liver, and spleen samples. However, following the tick-borne challenge, 5 of the 15 animals supported transmission to recipient larvae (Tables 1 and 2). Virus titers in A2G-derived ticks were comparable to those in ticks fed on BALB/c mice (Table 1). The contrast between the results of the needle-borne and tick-borne challenges did not appear to be related to the virus dose. Extrapolation of data on the amount of THOV secreted in the saliva of Amblyomma variegatum ticks (7) indicates that an average of approximately 100 PFU was delivered per mouse by the (partially) fed R. appendiculatus donor nymphs. Nonetheless, virus transmission was supported by one-third of the animals (Tables 1 and 2). These results demonstrate that nonviremic transmission of THOV can occur with Mx1+ A2G mice, although its efficiency is underestimated in this experiment because of the low recovery of engorged larvae and the poor feeding success of the donor nymphs with as few as a single nymph feeding on some animals (Table 1).
Saliva-activated transmission. The underlying mechanism of nonviremic transmission is believed to be a phenomenon called saliva-activated transmission (SAT), i.e., virus transmission potentiated by immunomodulatory components present in tick saliva that facilitate blood feeding (11, 15). We tested whether the nonviremic transmission on A2G mice resulted from SAT. Salivary gland extract (SGE) was obtained by homogenizing salivary glands isolated from partially fed, uninfected R. appendiculatus females collected after 6 days of feeding on uninfected guinea pigs. It was previously shown that this SGE is most active in promoting SAT of THOV in a guinea pig model (6). Salivary glands were isolated and homogenized in phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.5) shortly before use. Virus was mixed with SGE equivalent to the salivary glands of one tick (corresponding to approximately 50 µg of total protein, as estimated by the Bio-Rad protein assay against bovine serum albumin standards) prior to s.c. injection. In this experiment, 3 in 10 A2G mice supported transmission to feeding larvae (Tables 1 and 2); the approximately twofold reduction in transmission efficiency compared with cofeeding transmission (Table 2) is consistent with previously published data (11). Again, no infection was detected in these animals, as assessed by titration of blood, liver, and spleen samples. Three similarly treated BALB/c mice developed systemic infections and supported transmission (Tables 1 and 2). Similar experiments using SGE from unfed ticks did not result in virus transmission to larvae feeding on inoculated A2G mice. These results suggest that saliva components are responsible for the cofeeding transmission observed in A2G mice, supporting the hypothesis that SAT is the underlying mechanism of nonviremic transmission.
In summary, the data reported here demonstrate that nonviremic transmission of THOV on A2G mice can occur efficiently and is most likely potentiated by a component(s) in tick saliva. The underlying mechanism may relate to the ability of tick SGE to inhibit type 1 interferon (IFN) production and, possibly, the action of IFN (2, 16). If this is so, it implies that cells exposed to tick saliva in the skin of A2G mice may not respond to released IFN, thus preventing the induction of Mx1 and the resulting antiviral state. THOV would then be able to establish a local skin infection, possibly including motile cells (e.g., Langerhans cells) that may act as part of a shuttling system, transporting virus from one tick feeding site to another, as postulated for tick-borne encephalitis virus (9). The biological significance of nonviremic transmission via Mx1+ mice is unknown; however, Mx1-based resistance is found in approximately three-quarters of wild mice (3), and it is tempting to speculate that Mx1+ alleles protect these animals from sporadic, hitherto undetected tick-borne orthomyxoviruses like THOV, as suggested previously (4). Thus, nonviremic transmission may play a key role in promoting the survival of these viruses in the natural ecosystem, as shown for tick-borne encephalitis virus (11).| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank L. Jones, P. Henbest, and C. Broadbent for assistance with the animal work.
This work was supported by a grant from the EU Human Capital and Mobility Network Program (ERBCHRXCT940453).
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: NERC Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology, Mansfield Rd., Oxford OX1 3SR, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-1865-281631. Fax: 44-1865-281696. E-mail: pan{at}mail.nox.ac.uk.
Present address: Department of Biology, Imperial College, London
SW7 2BB, United Kingdom.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Davies, C. R., L. D. Jones, and P. A. Nuttall. 1986. Experimental studies on the transmission cycle of Thogoto virus, a candidate orthomyxovirus, in Rhipicephalus appendiculatus ticks. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 35:1256-1262. |
| 2. | Hajnicka, V., N. Fuchsberger, M. Slovak, P. Kocakova, M. Labuda, and P. A. Nuttall. 1998. Tick salivary gland extracts promote virus growth in vitro. Parasitology 116:533-538. |
| 3. | Haller, O., M. Acklin, and P. Staeheli. 1987. Influenza virus resistance in wild mice: wild-type and mutant Mx alleles occur at comparable frequencies. J. Interferon Res. 7:647-656[Medline]. |
| 4. | Haller, O., M. Frese, D. Rost, P. A. Nuttall, and G. Kochs. 1995. Tick-borne Thogoto virus infection in mice is inhibited by the orthomyxovirus resistance gene product Mx1. J. Virol. 69:2596-2601[Abstract]. |
| 5. |
Jones, L. D.,
C. R. Davies,
G. M. Steele, and P. A. Nuttall.
1987.
A novel mode of arbovirus transmission involving a nonviraemic host.
Science
237:775-777 |
| 6. | Jones, L. D., W. R. Kaufman, and P. A. Nuttall. 1992. Modification of the skin feeding site by tick saliva mediates virus transmission. Experientia 48:779-782[Medline]. |
| 7. | Kaufman, W. R., and P. A. Nuttall. 1996. Amblyomma variegatum (Acari: Ixodidae): mechanism and control of arbovirus secretion in tick saliva. Exp. Parasitol. 82:316-323[Medline]. |
| 8. |
Krug, R. M.,
M. Shaw,
B. Broni,
G. Shapiro, and O. Haller.
1985.
Inhibition of influenza viral mRNA synthesis in cells expressing the interferon-induced Mx gene product.
J. Virol.
56:201-206 |
| 9. | Labuda, M., J. Austyn, E. Zuffova, O. Kozuch, N. Fuchsberger, J. Lysy, and P. Nuttall. 1996. Importance of localized skin infection in tick-borne encephalitis virus transmission. Virology 219:357-366[Medline]. |
| 10. | Lindenmann, J. 1962. Resistance of mice to mouse adapted influenza A virus. Virology 16:203-204. |
| 11. | Nuttall, P. A. 1998. Displaced tick-parasite interactions at the host interface. Parasitology 116:S65-S72. |
| 12. | Nuttall, P. A., L. D. Jones, M. Labuda, and W. R. Kaufman. 1994. Adaptations of arboviruses to ticks. J. Med. Entomol. 31:1-9[Medline]. |
| 13. |
Pringle, C. R.
1996.
Virus taxonomy 1996 a bulletin from the 10th International Conference of Virology in Jerusalem.
Arch. Virol.
141:2251-2256[Medline].
|
| 14. | Staeheli, P., F. Pitossi, and J. Pavlovic. 1993. Mx proteins: GTPases with antiviral activity. Trends Cell Biol. 3:268-272. [Medline] |
| 15. | Wang, H., G. C. Paesen, P. A. Nuttall, and A. G. Barbour. 1998. Male ticks help their mates to feed. Nature 391:753-754[Medline]. |
| 16. | Wikel, S. K., and D. Bergman. 1997. Tick-host immunology: significant advances and challenging opportunities. Parasitol. Today 13:383-389. [Medline] |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»