Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Minireviews
    • JVI Classic Spotlights
    • Archive
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JVI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Virology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Minireviews
    • JVI Classic Spotlights
    • Archive
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JVI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Virus-Cell Interactions

Pigs Lacking the Scavenger Receptor Cysteine-Rich Domain 5 of CD163 Are Resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus 1 Infection

Christine Burkard, Tanja Opriessnig, Alan J. Mileham, Tomasz Stadejek, Tahar Ait-Ali, Simon G. Lillico, C. Bruce A. Whitelaw, Alan L. Archibald
Tom Gallagher, Editor
Christine Burkard
aThe Roslyn Institute, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christine Burkard
Tanja Opriessnig
aThe Roslyn Institute, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, United Kingdom
bDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alan J. Mileham
cGenus plc, DeForest, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tomasz Stadejek
dWarsaw University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Pathology and Veterinary Diagnostics, Warsaw, Poland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tahar Ait-Ali
aThe Roslyn Institute, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simon G. Lillico
aThe Roslyn Institute, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Bruce A. Whitelaw
aThe Roslyn Institute, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alan L. Archibald
aThe Roslyn Institute, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tom Gallagher
Loyola University Medical Center
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00415-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIG 1
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 1

    Generation of ΔSRCR5 pigs and experimental setup. (A) Genome editing to generate ΔSRCR5 pigs. Genome-edited founder animals were generated by zygote injection of CRISPR/Cas9 editing reagents using Cas9 mRNA and two guide RNAs, sgSL26 and sgSL28, in combination to generate a deletion of exon 7 in CD163. Animals were bred to generate F1 and F2 generations, focusing on one genotype showing clean religation at the cutting sites of both guide RNAs. Homozygous F2 animals carry this genotype in both alleles (bottom). (B) Structure prediction and expression of ΔSRCR5 in pulmonary alveolar macrophages of F2 animals. Protein structure prediction using RaptorX points toward an intact protein product upon the deletion of SRCR5. (C) Experimental design of the challenge study. Four homozygous (green) and 4 wild-type (orange) siblings from heterozygous/heterozygous mating of the F1 generation animals were cohoused from weaning. Genotypes were confirmed by PCR amplification across exon 7 (see panel A) and by Sanger sequencing. Piglets were cohoused after weaning and after acclimation to the specific-pathogen-free unit for 1 week and throughout the 14-day challenge experiment that was initiated by inoculating each pig intranasally with 5E6 TCID50 of PRRSV-1 subtype 2 strain BOR-57 at day 0 and day 1 of the challenge. The piglets were 7 to 8 weeks of age at the start of the acclimation period. (D) Piglets 1 day before the start of the challenge.

  • FIG 2
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 2

    Serum levels of soluble C163. Serum samples collected 2 weeks prior to and on day 0 of the challenge were assessed for the level of sCD163 using a commercial ELISA (n = 4 pigs per genotype, serum collected at 2 different time points, assessed in duplicate in 3 replicates). Minima/maxima and 90th percentiles are displayed. Statistical analysis using an unpaired t test showed no significant difference.

  • FIG 3
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 3

    ΔSRCR5 pigs show no clinical signs or pathology of PRRSV-1 infection. (A) Rectal temperatures of ΔSRCR5 (green) and wild-type (orange) piglets during challenge with BOR-57. Rectal temperatures were measured daily during feeding. Error bars represent standard errors of the means (SEM) (n = 4). (B) Average daily weight gain based on weight measurements at day 0, 7, and 14 of the challenge. For panels A and B, statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Sidak's multiple-comparison test. ns, not significant. (C) Viremia during challenge with BOR-57. Serum samples were collected at days 0, 3, 7, 10, and 14 from the jugular vein using vacuum tubes, and viral RNA was isolated and quantified using RT-qPCR with primers specific to ORF5 of BOR-57. (D) Antibody response to PRRSV-1 during the challenge. Serum samples were analyzed for the presence of PRRSV antibodies using the Idexx PRRSV X3 ELISA, where a value of <0.40 is negative and a value of ≧0.4 is positive. Each data point/line represents data for a single animal, with 4 animals per genotype group. (E) Lung and lymph node pathology, histopathology, and immunohistochemistry (IHC) scores. Lung pathology was assessed in a blind fashion, and a subjective score for the severity of gross lung lesions using an established scoring system was applied (scale, 0 to 100). Lung histopathology sections were scored for the presence and severity of interstitial pneumonia, ranging from 0 to 6 (0, normal; 1, mild multifocal; 2, mild diffuse; 3, moderate multifocal; 4, moderate diffuse; 5, severe multifocal; 6, severe diffuse). Immunohistochemistry staining against PRRSV-N of lung and lymph node sections was scored, ranging from 0 to 3 (0, no signal; 1, low numbers of positive cells; 2, moderate numbers of positive cells; 3, abundant). Numbers represent averages (n = 4) ± SEM. (F) Lung histology and immunohistochemistry. (Top) Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained lung sections from necropsy on day 14 postchallenge. (Left) ΔSRCR5 piglets; (right) wild-type piglets. Bar, 100 μm. (Bottom) Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded immunohistochemical staining against PRRSV antigen (brown) and hematoxylin counterstain. (Left) ΔSRCR5 piglets; (right) wild-type piglets. The scale bar represents 50 μm. (G) Lung pathology. Shown are lungs from pigs at necropsy at 14 days postchallenge. (Left) Lungs from two ΔSRCR5 pigs; (right) lungs from two wild-type pigs.

  • FIG 4
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG 4

    Cytokine response to BOR-57 PRRSV infection. Cytokine levels in serum samples collected prior to challenge on day 0 and on challenge days 3, 7, 10, and 14 were measured using cytokine antibody arrays. (A) Alpha interferon (IFN-α); (B) interleukin-17A (IL-17A); (C) interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra); (D) IL-4; (E) IL-6; (F) IL-8; (G) monokine induced by gamma interferon (MIG/CXCL9); (H) macrophage inflammatory protein 1β (MIP-1β/CCL4); (I) chemokine ligand 3-like 1 (CCL3L1); (J) granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF); (K) tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α); (L) IL-12; (M) IL-1β; (N) IL-10; (O) transforming growth factor β1 (TGFβ1); (P) IFN-γ; (Q) IL-18; (R) platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule 1 (PECAM-1/CD31); (S) IL-1α; (T) IL-13. Error bars represent SEM (duplicates of 4 replicates). Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Sidak's multiple-comparison test. *, P ≤ 0.5; **, P ≤ 0.01; ***, P ≤ 0.001; ****, P ≤ 0.0001.

Tables

  • Figures
  • TABLE 1

    Whole-blood-count results for ΔSRCR5 (animals 4 to 7) and wild-type (animals 8 to 11) piglets at week 6a

    IndicatorValue for animalReference value (range)
    4567891011
    WBC count (10E9/liter)22.5241415.112.419.626.114.411–22
    Neutrophil count (segmented) (10E9/liter)5.854.84.625.8894.347.2527.834.322–15
    % neutrophils (segmented)262033393537303020–70
    Neutrophil count (nonsegmented) (10E9/liter)000000000–0.8
    % neutrophils (nonsegmented)000000000–4
    Lymphocyte count (10E9/liter)15.318.728.828.3057.56411.7616.1829.363.8–16.5
    % lymphocytes687863556160626535–75
    Monocyte count (10E9/liter)0.6750.480.420.7550.4960.5881.0440.5760–1
    % monocytes323543440–10
    Eosinophil count (10E9/liter)0.675000.151001.0440.1440–1.5
    % eosinophils300100410–15
    Basophil count000.14000000–0.5
    % basophils001000000–3
    RBC count (10E12/liter)6.036.646.996.586.36.537.526.975–9
    PCV/hematocrit0.3840.3910.3830.3880.3820.390.4290.4210.36–0.43
    Hb level (g/dl)11.511.910.911.811.61213.812.310–16
    MCV (fl)63.758.954.858.960.759.857.160.550–62
    MCHC (g/dl)29.930.428.330.530.330.932.129.130–36
    No. of platelets219230605397483519219606120–720
    RDW20.923.128.920.621181722.6
    • ↵a WBC, white blood cell; RBC, red blood cell; PCV, packed cell volume; Hb, hemoglobin; MCV, mean corpuscular volume; MCHC, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration; RDW, red cell distribution width.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Pigs Lacking the Scavenger Receptor Cysteine-Rich Domain 5 of CD163 Are Resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus 1 Infection
Christine Burkard, Tanja Opriessnig, Alan J. Mileham, Tomasz Stadejek, Tahar Ait-Ali, Simon G. Lillico, C. Bruce A. Whitelaw, Alan L. Archibald
Journal of Virology Jul 2018, 92 (16) e00415-18; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00415-18

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Virology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pigs Lacking the Scavenger Receptor Cysteine-Rich Domain 5 of CD163 Are Resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus 1 Infection
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Virology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Virology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Pigs Lacking the Scavenger Receptor Cysteine-Rich Domain 5 of CD163 Are Resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus 1 Infection
Christine Burkard, Tanja Opriessnig, Alan J. Mileham, Tomasz Stadejek, Tahar Ait-Ali, Simon G. Lillico, C. Bruce A. Whitelaw, Alan L. Archibald
Journal of Virology Jul 2018, 92 (16) e00415-18; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00415-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

CD163
CRISPR/Cas9
PRRSV
arterivirus
exon deletion
genome editing
nidovirus
porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
resistance

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JVI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #Jvirology

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

JVI in collaboration with

American Society for Virology

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0022-538X; Online ISSN: 1098-5514