Influence of the C terminus of the small protein subunit of bean pod mottle virus on the antigenicity of the virus determined using monoclonal antibodies and anti-peptide antiserum Free

Abstract

Middle component particles of bean pod mottle virus (BPMV) containing small protein subunits with a cleaved C terminus were used to produce monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). All MAbs were specific for cryptotopes, i.e. epitopes present only on dissociated BPMV protein. The MAbs reacted more strongly with virus protein preparations containing the cleaved form of the small subunit than with preparations containing only the uncleaved form. It seems that the presence of additional residues at the C terminus of the intact small subunit interferes with antibody binding. Antibodies raised against synthetic peptides corresponding to the C terminus of the uncleaved small subunit reacted with both intact virions and dissociated subunits. This C-terminal region seems to play a dominant role in the antigenicity of the virus.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-72-9-2225
1991-09-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jgv/72/9/JV0720092225.html?itemId=/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-72-9-2225&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Agrawal H., Maat D. Z. 1964; Serological relationships among polyhedral plant viruses and production of high-titred antisera. Nature, London 202:674–675
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bancroft J. B. 1962; Purification and properties of bean pod mottle virus and associated centrifugal and electrophoretic components. Virology 16:419–427
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barany G., Merrifield R. B. 1980; Solid-phase peptide synthesis. In The Peptides. Analysis, Synthesis, Biology vol 2 Special Methods in Peptide Synthesis pp 3–285 Edited by Gross E., Meienhofer J. New York: Academic Press;
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Briand J. P., Muller S., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1985; Synthetic peptides as antigens: pitfalls of conjugation methods. Journal of Immunological Methods 78:59–69
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruening G. 1978; Comovirus group. CMI/AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses199
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen Z., Stauffacher C., Li Y., Schmidt T., Bomu W., Kamer G., Shanks M., Lomonossoff G., Johnson J. E. 1989; Protein-RNA interactions in an icosahedral virus at 3.0 Å resolution. Science 245:154–159
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dekker E. L., Porta C., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1989; Limitations of different ELISA procedures for localizing epitopes in viral coat protein subunits. Archives of Virology 105:269–286
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dore I., Weiss E., Altschuh D., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1988; Visualization by electron microscopy of the location of tobacco mosaic virus epitopes reacting with monoclonal antibodies in enzyme immunoassay. Virology 162:279–289
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fazekas de St Groth S., Scheidegger D. 1980; Production of monoclonal antibodies: strategy and tactics. Journal of Immunological Methods 35:1–21
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hardie G., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1977; Isolation of specific antibody under conditions of low ionic strength. Journal of Immunological Methods 15:305–314
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Huguenot C., Givord L., Sommermeyer G., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1989; Differentiation of peanut clump virus serotypes by monoclonal antibodies. Research in Virology 140:87–102
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jeaglé M., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1985; Use of ELISA for measuring the extent of serological cross-reactivity between plant viruses. Journal of Virological Methods 11:189–198
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jaeglé M., Briand J. P., Burckard J., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1988; Accessibility of three continuous epitopes in tomato bushy stunt virus. Annales de l’Institut Pasteur Virologie 139:39–50
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kalmar G. B., Eastwell K. C. 1989a; Reaction of coat proteins of two comoviruses in different aggregation states with monoclonal antibodies. Journal of General Virology 70:3451–3457
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kalmar G. B., Eastwell K. C. 1989b; Serological differentiation between top component and nucleoprotein components of comoviruses. Journal of General Virology 70:3459–3464
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Laemmli U. K. 1970; Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature, London 227:680–685
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mackenzie D. J., Tremaine J. H. 1986; The use of a monoclonal antibody specific for the N-terminal region of southern bean mosaic virus as a probe of virus structure. Journal of General Virology 67:727–735
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Niblett C. L., Semancik J. S. 1969; Conversion of the electrophoretic forms of cowpea mosaic virus in vivo and in vitro. Virology 38:685–693
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Polson A., von Wechmar M. B., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1980; Isolation of viral IgY antibodies from yolks of immunized hens. Immunological Communications 9:475–493
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Shepherd R. J. 1963; Serological relationship between bean pod mottle virus and cowpea mosaic viruses from Arkansas and Trinidad. Phytopathology 53:865–866
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Siler D. J., Babcock J., Bruening G. 1976; Electrophoretic mobility and enhanced infectivity of a mutant of cowpea mosaic virus. Virology 71:560–567
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Stocker J. W., Foster H. K., Miggiano V., Stahli C., Staiger G., Takacs B., Staehelin T. 1982; Generation of two new myeloma cell lines ‘PAT and ‘PAI-O’ for hybridoma production. Research Disclosures 217:155–157
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Swaans H., Van Kammen A. 1973; Reconsideration of the distinction between the severe and yellow strains of cowpea mosaic virus. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 79:257–265
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Thongmeearkom P., Goodman R. M. 1978; Electrophoretic properties of cowpea mosaic virus (severe subgroup). Journal of General Virology 41:155–160
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Tremaine J. H., Mackenzie D. J., Ronald W. P. 1985a; Monoclonal antibodies as structural probes of southern bean mosaic virus. Virology 144:80–87
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Tremaine J. H., Ronald W. P., Mackenzie D. J. 1985b; Southern bean mosaic virus monoclonal antibodies: reactivity with virus strains and with the virus antigen in different conformations. Phytopathology 75:1208–1212
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1986; The potential for using monoclonal antibodies in the detection of plant viruses. In Developments and Applications in Virus Testing pp 89–101 Edited by Jones R. A. C., Torrance L. Wellesbourne: Association of Applied Biologists;
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1990; Structure of viral B-cell epitopes. Research in Microbiology 141:747–756
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Regenmortel M. H. V., Neurath A. R. 1990 Immunochemistry of Viruses II. The Basis for Serodiagnosis and Vaccines Amsterdam: Elsevier;
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Westhof E., Altschuh A., Moras D., Bloomer A. C., Mondragon A., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1984; Correlation between segmental mobility and the location of antigenic determinants in proteins. Nature, London 311:123–126
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wu G. J., Bruening G. 1971; Two proteins from cowpea mosaic virus. Virology 46:596–612
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zrein M., Burckard J., Van Regenmortel M. H. V. 1986; Use of the biotin–avidin system for detecting a broad range of serologically related plant viruses by ELISA. Journal of Virological Methods 13:121–128
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-72-9-2225
Loading
/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-72-9-2225
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed