Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Virology, February 2000, p. 1079-1084, Vol. 74, No. 3
0022-538X/00/$04.00+0
Recovery and Altered Neutralization Specificities
of Chimeric Viruses Containing Capsid Protein Domain Exchanges from
Antigenically Distinct Strains of Feline Calicivirus
John D.
Neill,1,*
Stanislav V.
Sosnovtsev,2 and
Kim
Y.
Green2
Metabolic Diseases and Immunology Research
Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Ames, Iowa
50010,1 and Laboratory of Infectious
Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
208922
Received 30 June 1999/Accepted 10 December 1999
 |
ABSTRACT |
Feline calicivirus (FCV) strains can show significant antigenic
variation when tested for cross-reactivity with antisera produced against other FCV strains. Previous work has demonstrated the presence
of hypervariable amino acid sequences in the capsid protein of FCV
(designated regions C and E) that were postulated to constitute the
major antigenic determinants of the virus. To examine the involvement
of hypervariable sequences in determining the antigenic phenotype, the
nucleotide sequences encoding the E regions from three antigenically
distinct parental FCV strains (CFI, KCD, and NADC) were exchanged for
the equivalent sequences in an FCV Urbana strain infectious cDNA clone.
Two of the three constructs were recovered as viable, chimeric viruses.
In six additional constructs, of which three were recovered as viable
virus, the E region from the parental viruses was divided into left
(N-terminal) and right (C-terminal) halves and engineered into the
infectious clone. A final viable construct contained the C, D, and E
regions of the NADC parental strain. Recovered chimeric viruses showed
considerable antigenic variation from the parental viruses when tested
against parental hyperimmune serum. No domain exchange was able to
confer complete recognition by parental antiserum with the exception of
the KCD E region exchange, which was neutralized at a near-homologous titer with KCD antiserum. These data demonstrate that it is possible to
recover engineered chimeric FCV strains that possess altered antigenic
characteristics. Furthermore, the E hypervariable region of the capsid
protein appears to play a major role in the formation of the antigenic
structure of the virion where conformational epitopes may be more
important than linear in viral neutralization.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Feline calicivirus (FCV),
a member of the family Caliciviridae, is frequently isolated
from cats displaying acute upper respiratory disease and stomatitis as
well as from cats that appear clinically normal. Antigenic
relationships have been examined by serum neutralization (7,
21), plaque reduction neutralization (11), and
monoclonal antibody (MAb) binding assays (14, 29, 30). These
analyses have confirmed that there is significant antigenic variation
among FCV strains. However, considerable cross-reactivity among strains has also been observed, based on two-way cross-neutralization tests
(2, 11, 21). Thus, FCV strains have generally been considered as variants of a single serotype (11, 21).
Feline caliciviruses are nonenveloped viruses with diameters of 35 to
40 nm that contain a plus-sense, single-stranded, polyadenylated RNA
genome. The viral shell is composed of 180 copies of a single capsid
protein (22). The capsid protein is encoded within the 3'-terminal 2,400 bases of the genomic RNA and is translated primarily from the abundant 2.4-kb subgenomic RNA transcribed from this region
(3, 9, 21, 30). The FCV capsid precursor protein ranges in
size from 668 to 671 amino acids (aa) and shows an overall amino acid
identity of 71%. The capsid precursor protein of the animal
caliciviruses can be divided into six regions, A through F
(19), based on the degree of amino acid conservation among FCV, San Miguel sea lion virus, and rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus.
The A region, corresponding to aa 1 to 120 of the CFI strain of FCV, is
highly conserved and is cleaved following synthesis in both FCV and San
Miguel sea lion virus. Cleavage of the leader polypeptide has been
shown to be mediated by a viral proteinase in FCV (28). An
equivalent region is not present in rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus
and the human caliciviruses. The B region (aa 121 to 396) contains
sequences that are highly conserved among all the caliciviruses and is
thought to form the viral core structure (19). The regions
designated C (aa 397 to 411) and E (aa 426 to 521) were proposed to
contain antigenic determinants of the virus because of sequence
variability among antigenically diverse viruses (19, 24,
25). It was suggested that the observed cross-reactivity among
FCV strains that resulted in the grouping of FCV strains into a single
serotype may be related to the presence within the E region of a highly
conserved amino acid core sequence of 31 aa. This core is flanked by
two hypervariable sequences of 33 aa at the N terminus and 32 aa at the
C terminus (25). The D region (aa 412 to 435) is highly
conserved, and only minimal, conserved amino acid changes are observed
in this domain of the capsid protein. The F region (aa 522 to 668) is
found at the C terminus of the capsid protein and is moderately
conserved among caliciviruses. The F region is thought to be at least
partially exposed on the surface of the virion, based on the mapping of the binding site of a nonneutralizing MAb to this region
(16).
MAb mapping experiments by Tohya et al. (29, 30) first
demonstrated the presence of seven neutralizing epitopes on the FCV
capsid. Studies by Guiver et al. (9), Milton et al.
(16), and Shin et al. (26) subsequently mapped
the binding sites of neutralizing MAbs to between amino acid residues
408 and 517 (entire E region), 422 and 458 (N-terminal half of the E
region), and 381 and 454 (C and D regions and N-terminal half of the E
region), respectively. These experiments indicated the involvement of
the E region in antigenicity and neutralization. Tohya et al.
(31) confirmed these findings by the sequence analysis of
MAb neutralization-resistant variants. Four linear and two
conformational epitopes were identified in the two hypervariable
portions of the E region. In all cases, the resistance to MAb
neutralization was associated with a single nucleotide change that
resulted in an amino acid substitution. The six amino acid
substitutions identified fell within the regions identified in the
earlier MAb mapping experiments. Kruetz et al. (14) analyzed
the sequence of the E regions in viruses isolated from persistently
infected cats (10), some of which showed significant differences in antigenicity from the original infecting strain. This
study revealed that relatively minor amino acid changes in the variable
portions of the E region had a profound effect on antigenicity. Many of
the amino acid changes occurred within the regions of the E region
identified by Tohya et al. (31).
The goal of this study was to examine the role of the hypervariable E
region in determining the antigenic phenotype of the FCV virion. An
infectious cDNA clone of the Urbana (URB) strain of FCV (27)
was used to examine the effect of replacement of the hypervariable
sequences of the URB capsid protein with those from antigenically
distinct FCV strains. The parental strains used here (CFI, KCD, and
NADC) were chosen because of the distinct serologic differences
reported previously (11, 21, 25). It was not known whether
the FCV capsid protein could tolerate such domain exchanges, but the
recovery of viable, chimeric viruses would allow an analysis of the
effects of these exchanges on virus neutralization.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Cells, viruses, and RNA purification.
FCV parental strains
CFI (5), KCD (8), NADC (24), and URB
(27) and chimeric viruses were propagated in Crandell-Rees feline kidney (CRFK) cells as previously described (17). The CFI and KCD strains were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, Va.). Total cellular RNA from FCV-infected cells
was prepared by the guanidine-acidic phenol method (4) and
was used for reverse transcriptase-mediated PCR of capsid sequences for
domain exchanges and for sequence analysis of exchanged regions in
chimeric viruses. Viruses used for antiserum production were grown in
roller bottles and purified by CsCl isopycnic centrifugation (17).
Plasmids.
Plasmid pFI-28, which contained the 3'-terminal
4,657 bp of the URB strain of FCV (27), was modified to
serve as a shuttle vector for replacement of nucleotide sequences of
the FCV capsid protein gene. pFI-28 was digested with SmaI,
which cuts the single SmaI site in the polylinker of the
pSPORT1 plasmid. This was followed by ligation of SpeI
synthetic linkers to the ends and digestion with SpeI, which
digested the linkers as well as a SpeI site at nucleotide
3084 of the URB clone. The plasmid was recircularized by ligation. A
plasmid containing only the 3' terminal 1,573 bases of the URB genome
was designated pFI-28spe and was used in all further DNA manipulations.
This plasmid contained single SpeI, NotI,
MscI, and StyI restriction sites that were used
in further plasmid constructs. The latter two restriction sites flanked
the E region sequences of the capsid protein gene and allowed
replacement of this domain.
Primers and PCRs.
PCRs were performed as previously
described (20) with the exception that Taq DNA
polymerase was replaced with Expand high-fidelity polymerase mix
(Boehringer Mannheim, Inc., Indianapolis, Ind.). Primers were designed
using capsid gene sequences from the CFI, KCD, NADC, and URB sequences
(GenBank accession no. M32819, L09718, L09719, and L40021,
respectively). A cDNA clone of each parental capsid protein gene was
used as the template in amplification reactions. Each parental virus E
region was amplified by using FCVE plus and FCVE minus primers (Table
1). To amplify the C, D, and E regions in
a single fragment, the FCVE minus primer was used with the NADC CDE
plus primer. Half-site domain exchanges, involving only one half of the
E region, were generated by using primers that annealed to the highly
conserved central core sequences of the E region of FCV. These primers
were designed to create new restriction sites without altering the
amino acid sequence encoded by the DNA fragment. The half E region was
amplified from the donating strain with the other half E region
amplified from the URB strain. The two fragments were purified by using
GeneClean resin as specified by the manufacturer (Bio 101, Inc., Vista, Calif.). The fragments were digested with the appropriate restriction endonuclease (BamHI for the KCD half site or PstI
for the NADC and CFI half-site), pooled and ligated in a 50-µl total
volume. The full-length E region was amplified by using 2 µl of the
ligation reaction mixture and the FCVE plus and FCVE minus primers in a standard PCR.
Cloning of PCR products.
Following amplification, the single
DNA fragment from the E regions, CDE region, and half-site exchanges
were purified from the PCR products by using GeneClean resin. The E
region and half-site exchange fragments were digested with
MscI and StyI and were ligated into
MscI/StyI-digested pFI-28spe. The CDE region
exchange was digested with SpeI and StyI and
ligated into SpeI/StyI-digested pFI-28spe.
Recovered plasmids were screened for the presence of restriction sites
present in the exchanged fragment and not in the original URB
sequences. The plasmids were then sequenced to confirm the fidelity of
the sequence.
Construction and recovery of chimeric viruses.
The confirmed
domain exchanges constructed in pFI-28spe were transferred into the FCV
URB infectious cDNA clone pQ14 (27) by digestion of the
exchange-containing plasmid with SpeI and NotI
and subsequent ligation of the chimeric FCV sequences into SpeI/NotI-digested pQ14. Recovered plasmids were
screened for the proper insert with restriction endonuclease digestion
and were sequenced to confirm the fidelity of exchanged sequences. RNA
transcription and transfection of synthetic, capped RNA into susceptible cells were performed as previously described
(27). Virus recovered following transfection was plaque
purified three times and analyzed for the domain exchange by PCR
amplification of the E region and restriction digestion of the PCR
product with a differentiating restriction endonuclease. Following
recovery of virus, CRFK cells were infected, and culture fluids
containing virus were frozen at
80°C until further use. The
nomenclature and domain exchanges for each construct are shown in Table
2 and Fig.
1.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
PCR amplification and subcloning of E region sequences
from the FCV capsid protein gene to construct domain exchange chimeric
viruses. The domains of the FCV capsid protein are shown at the top as
encoded by the 2.4-kb subgenomic RNA. A to F represent previously
described domains of the capsid protein (17). ORF3 is a
small open reading frame immediately following the capsid protein gene.
The sequences encoding the domain to be exchanged were PCR amplified
with restriction sites included on the ends. The line above the genomic
sequences show locations of the restriction sites used in the DNA
manipulations. Sp, M, St, and N represent SpeI,
MscI, StyI, and NotI restriction
sites, respectively, found in the URB cDNA sequences; R represents a
restriction site engineered to construct the half-domain exchanges. The
full E domain contains the complete E region plus some flanking
sequences. The full CDE domain contains the complete C, D, and E
regions plus some flanking sequences. The N-half E (N-terminal) and
C-half E (C-terminal) domains were used to construct the half-site
exchanges. The half E fragments were digested with the R restriction
endonuclease, ligated, and reamplified as with the full E domain to
yield the full E-2 domain. The E, E-2, and CDE domains were cloned into
the URB strain FCV pFI-28spe shuttle vector and then into the pQ14 URB
strain infectious cDNA clone (25) as a
SpeI/NotI fragment. The three periods at the ends
of the sequences represent the remainder of the plasmid.
|
|
Virus titration.
Viruses were titrated by using serial
10-fold dilutions of virus in a 96-well microtiter plate format. Virus
dilutions (five replicates) were placed in wells, and CRFK cells were
added to each. The plates were incubated at 37°C in 5%
CO2 atmosphere for 48 h. Viral titers were calculated
by the method of Reed and Muench (23).
Antiserum and virus neutralization assays.
Antisera were
raised against FCV parental and chimeric viruses by emulsification of
CsCl-purified viruses in TiterMax adjuvant (CytRx Corp., Norcross, Ga.)
and injection of female New Zealand White rabbits as recommended by the
manufacturer. Neutralization titers (NT) of each antiserum were
determined for homologous and heterologous viruses by the virus
neutralization test using the 96-well microtiter plate format. Briefly,
antisera were diluted serially twofold and mixed with 100 50% tissue
culture infective doses of virus. Each serum dilution was tested in
five replicates. After incubation at 37°C for 1 h, CRFK cells
were added to each well and the plate was incubated at 37°C in 5%
CO2 for 48 h. Each well was examined for cytopathic
effect, and the antibody titer was determined to be the highest
antiserum dilution that gave complete neutralization in all five test
wells. All virus-antiserum combinations were tested in at least two
independent tests.
The Archetti and Horsfall analysis (
1) was used to compare
the antigenic relatedness of the parental and chimeric viruses
following two-way cross-neutralization analysis. Briefly, the
equation
r =
r1 ×
r2, where
r is the geometric mean of the titer
ratios
r1 and
r2, was used.
1
1 was calculated by dividing the
titer of the
antiserum to virus 1 against virus 2 by the titer
of antiserum to virus
1 against virus 1. 1
2 was calculated by
dividing
the titer of the antiserum to virus 2 against virus 1
by the titer of
the antiserum to virus 2 against virus 2. An
r value of

0.5 or

2 indicated a significant difference in antigenicity
between
two viruses. This analysis was limited to the chimeric
viruses for
which antisera were
available.
 |
RESULTS |
Chimeric virus recovery.
Following transfer of the URB
sequences containing the E region exchanges into pQ14, full-length
capped RNA transcripts were generated and used to transfect CRFK cells.
Viable chimeric viruses were recovered for all exchanges with the
exception of the CFI E region, the CFI E right (C-terminus) half site,
and both KCD half-site exchanges (Table 2). Sequence analysis of the
four recombinant plasmids that did not yield viable progeny showed the
exchanged regions and the regions adjacent to these sequences to be
correct, with no frameshift or premature termination codons. However,
we did not determine whether point mutations in other regions of the
genome were introduced during cloning. Other possible reasons for
failure to recover these chimeric viruses include (i) unfavorable
interactions between regions of the capsid protein necessary for
assembly and stability of the virus particles and (ii) disruption of
interactions of the chimeric capsid protein with other viral proteins
or RNA. Additional studies into the mechanisms responsible for the
failure to recover these chimeric viruses are in progress.
Neutralization specificity of parental antisera against parental
viruses.
Specific antisera produced in rabbits against the four
parental strains URB, KCD, NADC, and CFI were used to compare
differences in antigenicity by virus neutralization tests (Table
3). The antisera (Table 3) showed
homologous NTs ranging from 1:8,192 (URB) to 1:65,536 (KCD and NADC).
The heterologous NTs of the parental hyperimmune sera ranged from 1:32
(anti-KCD versus URB and CFI) to 1:1,024 (anti-NADC versus KCD).
Cross-neutralization data for the parental strains were analyzed by the
stringent Archetti and Horsfall test. The antigenic
difference is
considered significant when the
r value is

2. The
r values obtained from the parental strain NTs ranged from
184
(anti-URB versus CFI) to 525 (anti-KCD versus CFI [data not
shown]).
Neutralization specificity of parental virus antisera against
chimeric viruses.
The NTs of the parental antisera against the
chimeric viruses were, in most cases, significantly different from
those observed against the parental viruses (Table 3). Of interest, the
URB antiserum did not neutralize the chimeric viruses efficiently, although the capsid protein was derived primarily from the URB strain.
All chimeric viruses showed decreases of 8- to 64-fold in NTs from the
URB homologous NT. The NTs with KCD antiserum showed no specific
recognition of the chimeric viruses with the exception of the chimeric
virus U/KE, which was neutralized at 1:32,768, an NT that
was similar to the homologous NT of this antiserum with KCD (1:65,536).
This was the only observed example of efficient recognition of a
chimeric virus by a parental antiserum. The parental CFI antiserum did
not neutralize the recovered chimeric viruses efficiently, although
there were elevated NTs against the CFI chimeric virus
U/CEL (1:1,024), as well as U/KE (1:1,024) and
U/NCDE (1:512), compared to the NT of 1:64 for this serum against URB (8- to 16-fold higher).
The NADC antiserum showed elevated NTs against three of the four
chimeras that contained NADC sequences compared to the NT
of anti-NADC
versus URB (1:128). The U/N
E, U/N
EL, and
UN
CDE viruses
had NTs that were at least 16-fold higher
(1:2,048, 1:2,048, and
1:8,192, respectively), while the
U/N
ER was 4-fold higher (1:512).
The NT for
U/N
ER was at least fourfold less than the NT for the
other
three NADC-containing chimeric viruses, indicating that
U/N
ER was less closely related antigenically to the
parental NADC
strain. In contrast to U/K
E, which was
neutralized by KCD antiserum,
the U/N
E chimeric virus was
not neutralized at a high serum dilution
by NADC
antiserum.
Neutralization specificity of antisera raised against chimeric
viruses.
Antisera raised against three chimeric viruses,
U/NE, U/NEL, and U/KE, showed high
homologous NTs (Table 3) and demonstrated marked specificity for the
immunizing virus. All homologous titers of the chimeric virus
hyperimmune sera were at least 16-fold higher than with any other virus
tested, including the parental strains. The lack of efficient
neutralization of KCD by U/KE antiserum was of interest
because of the efficient neutralization of U/KE by the KCD antiserum.
The three chimeric viruses against which antiserum was raised were
shown to be antigenically distinct from each other as well
as the
parental viruses by the Archetti and Horsfall method. The
r
values obtained from this analysis ranged from 14 to 533 (data
not
shown).
 |
DISCUSSION |
An FCV infectious cDNA clone was used in this study to construct
and recover chimeric progeny viruses containing exchanged nucleotide
sequences encoding the hypervariable sequences of the single capsid
protein. A total of six chimeric viruses were recovered and
characterized. Transfer of the capsid protein hypervariable E region
sequences into the URB strain from antigenically distinct FCV strains
had a dramatic impact on the antigenicity of the recovered chimeric
viruses. In general, the chimeric viruses showed antigenic differences
from the URB strain that appeared as 8- to 32-fold-lower titers against
the URB hyperimmune serum, even though the URB sequences comprised from
64 to 92% of the capsid protein. Thus, major URB antigenic traits were
lost following the introduction of the heterologous capsid sequences.
However, in general, the exchanged sequences were unable to confer
complete antigenic traits of the donor parent to the chimeric viruses.
The only exception was the U/KE chimera. In this case, the
exchanged KCD E region conferred an antigenic phenotype that was
efficiently recognized by the KCD antiserum. However, the antiserum
raised against the U/KE virus failed to efficiently
neutralize the URB and KCD parental viruses as well as the other
heterologous viruses. The two other chimeric viruses containing
complete E region exchanges (U/NE and U/NCDE)
were not neutralized efficiently by the parental NADC antiserum, nor
did U/NE antiserum efficiently neutralize NADC. Thus, the
reason for the efficient recognition of U/KE by the KCD
antiserum is unclear. It is possible that an intact KCD antigenic site
was transferred into the URB capsid that maintained an authentic conformation recognized by the KCD antiserum. However, the inability to
transfer such a site from the NADC strain into the URB capsid suggests
that the conformation of the capsid, and not the primary amino acid
sequence, is the major determinant of antigenic specificity.
Antisera raised against the chimeric viruses appeared to have, in many
cases, NTs that were greater against other chimeric viruses than the
NTs against parental viruses. The only apparent connection among the
chimeric viruses was the shared URB sequence contained in the capsid
proteins. Conservation of this sequence undoubtedly resulted in the
generation of common antigens among the chimeric viruses.
The majority of chimeric viruses successfully recovered contained
sequences derived from the NADC parental strain. Thus, this set of
chimeric viruses allowed the greatest number of comparisons to be made
between two parental viruses. Although preliminary, our data suggest
that there may be a difference in the degree of recognition conferred
by the two halves of the E region. Comparison of the NTs for the
U/NEL and U/NER viruses showed that the
parental NADC antiserum recognized the U/NEL at a
fourfold-higher titer than it recognized the U/NER virus.
In contrast, the URB antiserum recognized U/NER at a
slightly (twofold) higher titer than U/NEL. These data
suggest that the left (N-terminal) portion of the E region may play a
slightly greater role in antigenic specificity. This possibility is
further supported by the finding that the majority of the neutralizing
MAbs map to this portion of the E region (Fig.
2) (8, 14, 24). Inclusion of
the variable C region in the U/NCDE chimera had only a
minimal change in the degree of recognition by NADC antiserum, with a
fourfold increase in NT of U/NCDE over U/NE.
The 1:8,192 NT of U/NCDE was still eightfold lower than the
homologous NADC NT. The U/NCDE chimera contained the
largest amount of exchanged capsid sequences, yet it did not assume
full serologic identity with the NADC parent.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Alignment of amino acid sequences of the C, D, and E
domains of the parental strains CFI, KCD, NADC, and URB. The domains
are marked by vertical lines, as is the border between the left and
right halves of the E region. The amino acid residues are numbered from
the start of translation of the capsid protein of the URB strain.
Arrows indicate the amino acid residues that were identified as changed
by Tohya et al. (29) in MAb neutralization-resistant
variants of FCV. The underlined residues are those that make up the
highly conserved central core region.
|
|
An interesting observation was the general inability to recover
chimeric viruses with CFI E region exchanges. The URB capsid protein
could tolerate only the CFI E left region. A comparison of the amino
acid sequences of the C, D, and E regions of the parental viruses (Fig.
2) found that 17 of the amino acid residues were hypervariable among
all four parental viruses, based on the inability to form a consensus
at that residue. Of these 17 residues, 4 were identical between URB and
CFI in the left portion of the E region. Only one such conserved
hypervariable amino acid was conserved between URB and CFI in the right
half. The higher conservation of hypervariable amino acids in the left
half of the E region may have been sufficient to confer the ability to
recover the U/CEL chimera. The arrows in Fig. 2 indicate
the six amino acid residues identified by Tohya et al. (31)
that were changed in the MAb neutralization-resistant variants. Five of
these six residues were hypervariable in all parental viruses.
The data presented here support the observation that the larger the
region exchanged, the greater the degree of recognition by the E region
donor parental antisera. The general inability to confer complete or
near complete recognition by parental antisera to the chimeric viruses
illustrates that some portion of the antigenic determinants that play
an additional role in antigenicity may be missing from these chimeric
viruses. For example, the moderately conserved F region has been shown
to have at least some surface exposure on the virus particle
(16). The involvement of the F region sequences was not
investigated here. The lack of recognition of parental viruses by the
chimeric antiserum (and vice versa) demonstrates that linear epitopes
may play only a minor role in antigenicity and neutralization. Taken
together, our data suggest that conformational epitopes formed by the
interaction of sequences from different regions of the capsid protein
or between neighboring capsid proteins play the major role in
determining the overall antigenic phenotype of the virus. This may
explain why relatively minor changes in amino acid sequence
(14) can cause dramatic changes in antigenicity. A minor
change in amino acid sequence may be sufficient to disrupt the
antigenically important conformational structure. Further structural
studies are needed to address the role of intra- and intercapsid
protein interactions in determining antigenic specificity.
The neutralization test has been used to define distinct serotypes for
a number of different viruses, with the criterion of a reciprocal
>20-fold difference in neutralizing antibody titer between a candidate
strain and an established serotype (6, 12). Our results
indicate that the four parental FCV strains examined in this study meet
this criterion. In earlier FCV studies, antigenic relationships were
established by using antisera obtained from cats undergoing natural
infection or raised in large animals injected with the virus. It is
possible that these approaches produced antisera that were not
uniformly serotype specific. For example, in two earlier studies by
Povey (21) and Kalunda et al. (11), antisera were
raised against the KCD FCV strain in goats; however, Povey determined
KCD to be what he called a distinct type, while Kalunda et al. found it
to be broadly reactive. In addition, these two studies and others
showed extensive cross-reactivity among FCV strains with sera from cats
undergoing natural infection with FCV; thus, all FCV strains have been
considered as belonging to a single serotype (11, 21). In
this study, hyperimmune sera were raised in rabbits by an immunization
strategy similar to that used in other virus systems to generate
antisera with serotype-specific neutralization specificity
(13). The testing described here was not designed to develop
an FCV serotyping scheme. However, it does indicate that distinct FCV
serotypes exist and that additional testing with standardized antisera
may be useful in determining whether serotypic diversity plays a role
in the natural history of FCV.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank B. Hackbart for excellent technical assistance. We also
thank Albert Kapikian and Yasutaka Hoshino, NIAID, NIH, for helpful discussions.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: National Animal
Disease Center, 2300 Dayton Rd., Ames, IA 50010. Phone: (515) 663-7730. Fax: (515) 663-7458. E-mail:
jneill{at}nadc.ars.usda.gov.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Archetti, I., and F. L. Horsfall.
1950.
Persistent antigenic variation of influenza A virus after complete neutralization in vivo with heterologous immune serum.
J. Exp. Med.
92:441-462[Abstract].
|
| 2.
|
Burki, F.,
B. Starustlea, and O. Ruttner.
1976.
Attempts to serologically classify feline caliciviruses on a national and international basis.
Infect. Immun.
14:876-881[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 3.
|
Carter, M. J.,
E. G. Routledge, and G. L. Toms.
1989.
Monoclonal antibodies to feline calicivirus.
J. Gen. Virol.
70:2197-2200[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Carter, M. J.,
I. D. Milton,
P. C. Turner,
J. Meanger,
M. Bennett, and R. M. Gaskell.
1992.
Identification and sequence determination of the capsid protein gene of feline calicivirus.
Arch. Virol.
122:233-235.
|
| 5.
|
Chomczynski, K., and N. Sacchi.
1987.
Single-step method of RNA isolation by acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction.
Anal. Biochem.
162:156-159[Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Committee on the Enteroviruses.
1957.
The enteroviruses.
Am. J. Public Health
47:1556-1566.
|
| 7.
|
Crandell, R. A., and S. H. Madin.
1960.
Experimental studies on a new feline virus.
Am. J. Vet. Res.
21:551-556.
|
| 8.
|
Fastier, L. B.
1957.
A new feline virus isolated in tissue culture.
Am. J. Vet. Res.
18:382-389[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Guiver, M.,
E. Littler,
E. O. Caul, and A. J. Fox.
1992.
The cloning, sequencing and expression of a major antigenic region from the feline calicivirus capsid protein.
J. Gen. Virol.
73:2429-2433[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Johnson, R. P.
1992.
Antigenic change in feline calicivirus during persistent infection.
Can. J. Vet. Res.
56:326-330[Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Kalunda, M.,
K. M. Lee,
D. F. Holmes, and J. H. Gillespie.
1975.
Serologic classification of feline caliciviruses by plaque-reduction neutralization and immunodiffusion.
Am. J. Vet. Res.
36:353-356[Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Kapikian, A. Z.,
R. M. Conand,
V. V. Hamparian,
R. M. Chanock,
P. J. Chapple,
E. C. Dick,
J. D. Fenter,
J. M. Gwaltney,
D. Hamre,
J. C. Holper,
W. S. Jordan,
E. H. Lennette,
J. L. Melnick,
W. J. Mogabgab,
M. A. Mufson,
C. A. Phillips,
H. H. Schielble, and D. A. J. Tyrrell.
1967.
Rhinoviruses: a numbering system.
Nature (London)
213:761-763[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Kapikian, A. Z.
1969.
Rhinoviruses, p. 603-640.
In
E. H. Lennette, and N. J. Schmidt (ed.), Diagnostic procedures for viral and rickettsial infections. American Public Health Association, Inc., New York, N.Y.
|
| 14.
|
Kruetz, L. C.,
R. P. Johnson, and B. S. Seal.
1998.
Phenotypic and genotypic variation of feline calicivirus during persistent infection of cats.
Vet. Microbiol.
59:229-236[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 15.
|
McArdle, F.,
S. Dawson,
M. J. Carter,
I. D. Milton,
P. C. Turner,
J. Meanger,
M. Bennett, and R. M. Gaskell.
1996.
Feline calicivirus strain differentiation using monoclonal antibody analysis in an enzyme-linked immuno-flow-assay.
Vet. Microbiol.
51:197-206[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 16.
|
Milton, I. D.,
J. Turner,
T. Teelan,
R. Gaskell,
P. C. Turner, and M. J. Carter.
1992.
Location of monoclonal antibody binding sites in the capsid protein of feline calicivirus.
J. Gen. Virol.
73:2435-2439[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 17.
|
Neill, J. D., and W. L. Mengeling.
1988.
Further characterization of the virus-specific RNAs in feline calicivirus infected cells.
Virus Res.
11:59-72[Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Neill, J. D.,
I. M. Reardon, and R. L. Heinrikson.
1991.
Nucleotide sequence and expression of the capsid protein gene of feline calicivirus.
J. Virol.
65:5440-5447[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Neill, J. D.
1992.
Nucleotide sequence of the capsid protein gene of two serotypes of San Migel sea lion virus: identification of conserved and non-conserved amino acid sequences among calicivirus capsid proteins.
Virus Res.
24:211-222[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Neill, J. D., and B. S. Seal.
1995.
Development of PCR primers for specific amplification of two distinct regions of the genomes of San Miguel sea-lion and vesicular exanthema of swine viruses.
Mol. Cell. Probes
9:33-38[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 21.
|
Povey, R. C.
1974.
Serologic relationships among feline caliciviruses.
Infect. Immun.
10:1307-1314[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 22.
|
Prasad, B. V. V.,
D. O. Matson, and A. W. Smith.
1994.
Three-dimensional structure of calicivirus.
J. Mol. Biol.
240:256-264[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 23.
|
Reed, L. J., and H. Muench.
1938.
A simple method of estimating fifty per cent end points.
Am. J. Hyg.
27:493-497.
|
| 24.
|
Seal, B. S.,
J. F. Ridpath, and W. L. Mengeling.
1993.
Analysis of feline calicivirus capsid protein genes: identification of variable antigenic determinant regions of the protein.
J. Gen. Virol.
74:2519-2524[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 25.
|
Seal, B. S.
1994.
Analysis of capsid protein gene variation among divergent isolates of feline calicivirus.
Virus Res.
33:39-53[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 26.
|
Shin, Y.-S.,
Y. Tohya,
R. Oshikamo,
Y. Kawaguchi,
K. Tomonaga,
T. Miyazawa,
C. Kai, and T. Mikami.
1993.
Antigenic analysis of feline calicivirus capsid precursor protein and its deleted polypeptides produced in a mammalian expression system.
Virus Res.
30:17-26[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 27.
|
Sosnovtsev, S. V., and K. Y. Green.
1995.
RNA transcripts derived from cloned full-length copy of the feline calicivirus genome do not require VPg for infectivity.
Virology
210:383-390[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 28.
|
Sosnovtsev, S. V.,
S. A. Sosnovtseva, and K. Y. Green.
1998.
Cleavage of the feline calicivirus capsid precursor is mediated by a virus-encoded proteinase.
J. Virol.
72:3051-3059[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 29.
|
Tohya, Y.,
Y. Taniguchi,
M. Tsubakimoto,
E. Takahashi, and T. Mikami.
1990.
Preparation and characterization of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to feline calicivirus.
Jpn. J. Vet. Sci.
52:251-256.
|
| 30.
|
Tohya, Y.,
K. Masuoka,
E. Takahashi, and T. Mikami.
1991.
Neutralizing epitopes of feline calicivirus.
Arch. Virol.
117:173-181[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Tohya, Y.,
N. Yokoyama,
K. Maeda,
Y. Kawaguchi, and T. Mikami.
1997.
Mapping of antigenic sites involved in neutralization on the capsid protein of feline calicivirus.
J. Gen. Virol.
78:303-305[Abstract].
|
Journal of Virology, February 2000, p. 1079-1084, Vol. 74, No. 3
0022-538X/00/$04.00+0
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Siebenga, J. J., Vennema, H., Renckens, B., de Bruin, E., van der Veer, B., Siezen, R. J., Koopmans, M.
(2007). Epochal Evolution of GGII.4 Norovirus Capsid Proteins from 1995 to 2006. J. Virol.
81: 9932-9941
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Chen, R., Neill, J. D., Estes, M. K., Prasad, B. V. V.
(2006). X-ray structure of a native calicivirus: Structural insights into antigenic diversity and host specificity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
103: 8048-8053
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lochridge, V. P., Jutila, K. L., Graff, J. W., Hardy, M. E.
(2005). Epitopes in the P2 domain of norovirus VP1 recognized by monoclonal antibodies that block cell interactions. J. Gen. Virol.
86: 2799-2806
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Schwantes, A., Truyen, U., Weikel, J., Weiss, C., Lochelt, M.
(2003). Application of Chimeric Feline Foamy Virus-Based Retroviral Vectors for the Induction of Antiviral Immunity in Cats. J. Virol.
77: 7830-7842
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Thumfart, J. O., Meyers, G.
(2002). Feline Calicivirus: Recovery of Wild-Type and Recombinant Viruses after Transfection of cRNA or cDNA Constructs. J. Virol.
76: 6398-6407
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Matsuura, Y., Tohya, Y., Mochizuki, M., Takase, K., Sugimura, T.
(2001). Identification of conformational neutralizing epitopes on the capsid protein of canine calicivirus. J. Gen. Virol.
82: 1695-1702
[Abstract]
[Full Text]