1887

Journal of General Virology header logo

Volume 103, Issue 2

Glycosaminoglycan binding by arboviruses: a cautionary tale No Access

Abstract

Arboviruses are medically important arthropod-borne viruses that cause a range of diseases in humans from febrile illness to arthritis, encephalitis and hemorrhagic fever. Given their transmission cycles, these viruses face the challenge of replicating in evolutionarily divergent organisms that can include ticks, flies, mosquitoes, birds, rodents, reptiles and primates. Furthermore, their cell attachment receptor utilization may be affected by the opposing needs for generating high and sustained serum viremia in vertebrates such that virus particles are efficiently collected during a hematophagous arthropod blood meal but they must also bind sufficiently to cellular structures on divergent organisms such that productive infection can be initiated and viremia generated. Sulfated polysaccharides of the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) groups, primarily heparan sulfate (HS), have been identified as cell attachment moieties for many arboviruses. Original identification of GAG binding as a phenotype of arboviruses appeared to involve this attribute arising solely as a consequence of adaptation of virus isolates to growth in cell culture. However, more recently, naturally circulating strains of at least one arbovirus, eastern equine encephalitis, have been shown to bind HS efficiently and the GAG binding phenotype continues to be associated with arbovirus infection in published studies. If GAGs are attachment receptors for many naturally circulating arboviruses, this could lead to development of broad-spectrum antiviral therapies through blocking of the virus–GAG interaction. This review summarizes the available data for GAG/HS binding as a phenotype of naturally circulating arbovirus strains emphasizing the importance of avoiding tissue culture amplification and artifactual phenotypes during their isolation.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): alphavirus , arbovirus , cell culture adaptation , flavivirus , gycosaminoglycan and heparan sulfate
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Award T32 AI049820)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MariaD.H. Alcorn
  • Defense Threat Reduction Agency (Award HDTRA1-15-1-0047)
    • Principle Award Recipient: WilliamB Klimstra
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Award R01 AI141646)
    • Principle Award Recipient: WilliamB Klimstra
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Award R01 AI095436)
    • Principle Award Recipient: WilliamB Klimstra
© 2022 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/jgv.0.001726
2022-02-22
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Griffin DE, Weaver SC. Alphaviruses. In Howley PM, Knipe DM, Whelan S. eds Fields Virology: Emerging Viruses, 7th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2020 pp 194–245
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Pierson TC, Lazear HM, Diamond MS. Flaviviruses: Dengue, Zika, West Nile, Yellow Fever and Other Flaviviruses. In Howley PM, Knipe DM, Whelan S. eds Fields Virology: Emerging Viruses, 7th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2020 p 346
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Tassaneetrithep B, Burgess TH, Granelli-Piperno A, Trumpfheller C, Finke J et al. DC-SIGN (CD209) mediates dengue virus infection of human dendritic cells. J Exp Med 2003; 197:823–829 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Klimstra WB, Nangle EM, Smith MS, Yurochko AD, Ryman KD. DC-SIGN and L-SIGN can act as attachment receptors for alphaviruses and distinguish between mosquito cell- and mammalian cell-derived viruses. J Virol 2003; 77:12022–12032 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Rose PP, Hanna SL, Spiridigliozzi A, Wannissorn N, Beiting DP et al. Natural resistance-associated macrophage protein is a cellular receptor for sindbis virus in both insect and mammalian hosts. Cell Host Microbe 2011; 10:97–104 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ma H, Kim AS, Kafai NM, Earnest JT, Shah AP et al. LDLRAD3 is a receptor for Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus. Nature 2020; 588:308–314 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhang R, Kim AS, Fox JM, Nair S, Basore K et al. Mxra8 is a receptor for multiple arthritogenic alphaviruses. Nature 2018; 557:570–574 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Meertens L, Carnec X, Lecoin MP, Ramdasi R, Guivel-Benhassine F et al. The TIM and TAM families of phosphatidylserine receptors mediate dengue virus entry. Cell Host Microbe 2012; 12:544–557 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Morizono K, Chen ISY. Role of phosphatidylserine receptors in enveloped virus infection. J Virol 2014; 88:4275–4290 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Perera-Lecoin M, Meertens L, Carnec X, Amara A. Flavivirus entry receptors: an update. Viruses 2013; 6:69–88 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Jemielity S, Wang JJ, Chan YK, Ahmed AA, Li W et al. TIM-family proteins promote infection of multiple enveloped viruses through virion-associated phosphatidylserine. PLoS Pathog 2013; 9:e1003232 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Richard AS, Zhang A, Park SJ, Farzan M, Zong M et al. Virion-associated phosphatidylethanolamine promotes TIM1-mediated infection by Ebola, dengue, and West Nile viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015; 112:14682–14687 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamel R, Dejarnac O, Wichit S, Ekchariyawat P, Neyret A et al. Biology of Zika virus infection in human skin cells. J Virol 2015; 89:8880–8896 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Davis CW, Nguyen H-Y, Hanna SL, Sánchez MD, Doms RW et al. West Nile virus discriminates between DC-SIGN and DC-SIGNR for cellular attachment and infection. J Virol 2006; 80:1290–1301 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Léger P, Tetard M, Youness B, Cordes N, Rouxel RN et al. Differential use of the C-type lectins L-SIGN and DC-SIGN for phlebovirus endocytosis. Traffic 2016; 17:639–656 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Wang KS, Kuhn RJ, Strauss EG, Ou S, Strauss JH. High-affinity laminin receptor is a receptor for Sindbis virus in mammalian cells. J Virol 1992; 66:4992–5001 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ludwig GV, Kondig JP, Smith JF. A putative receptor for Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus from mosquito cells. J Virol 1996; 70:5592–5599 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Zidane N, Ould-Abeih MB, Petit-Topin I, Bedouelle H. The folded and disordered domains of human ribosomal protein SA have both idiosyncratic and shared functions as membrane receptors. Biosci Rep 2012; 33:113–124 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Malygin AA, Bondarenko EI, Ivanisenko VA, Protopopova EV, Karpova GG et al. C-terminal fragment of human laminin-binding protein contains a receptor domain for Venezuelan equine encephalitis and tick-borne encephalitis viruses. Biochemistry 2009; 74:1328–1336 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Sakoonwatanyoo P, Boonsanay V, Smith DR. Growth and production of the dengue virus in C6/36 cells and identification of a laminin-binding protein as a candidate serotype 3 and 4 receptor protein. Intervirology 2006; 49:161–172 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Boonsanay V, Smith DR. Entry into and production of the Japanese encephalitis virus from C6/36 cells. Intervirology 2007; 50:85–92 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Tio PH, Jong WW, Cardosa MJ. Two dimensional VOPBA reveals laminin receptor (LAMR1) interaction with dengue virus serotypes 1, 2 and 3. Virol J 2005; 2:25 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Thepparit C, Smith DR. Serotype-specific entry of dengue virus into liver cells: identification of the 37-kilodalton/67-kilodalton high-affinity laminin receptor as a dengue virus serotype 1 receptor. J Virol 2004; 78:12647–12656 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen J, He W-R, Shen L, Dong H, Yu J et al. The laminin receptor is a cellular attachment receptor for classical swine fever virus. J Virol 2015; 89:4894–4906 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ardini E, Pesole G, Tagliabue E, Magnifico A, Castronovo V et al. The 67-kDa laminin receptor originated from a ribosomal protein that acquired a dual function during evolution. Mol Biol Evol 1998; 15:1017–1025 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Rea VE, Rossi FW, De Paulis A, Ragno P, Selleri C et al. 67 kda laminin receptor: structure, function and role in cancer and infection. Le infezioni in medicina: rivista periodica di eziologia, epidemiologia, diagnostica, clinica e terapia delle patologie infettive 2012; 20:8–12
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hulst MM, van Gennip HG, Moormann RJ. Passage of classical swine fever virus in cultured swine kidney cells selects virus variants that bind to heparan sulfate due to a single amino acid change in envelope protein Erns. J Virol 2000; 74:9553–9561 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Mecham JO, McHolland LE. Measurement of bluetongue virus binding to a mammalian cell surface receptor by an in situ immune fluorescent staining technique. J Virol Methods 2010; 165:112–115 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Nakamura S, Ishihara Y, Ishikawa K, Shimazaki T, Inoue Y et al. Inhibitory effect of heparin on Rhabdovirus and Bunyavirus isolated from cattle. Aust Vet J 1993; 70:264–265 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Andrei G, De Clercq E. Inhibitory effect of selected antiviral compounds on arenavirus replication in vitro. Antiviral Res 1990; 14:287–299 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mastromarino P, Conti C, Petruzziello R, Lapadula R, Orsi N. Effect of polyions on the early events of Sindbis virus infection of Vero cells. Arch Virol 1991; 121:19–27 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Chen Y, Maguire T, Hileman RE, Fromm JR, Esko JD et al. Dengue virus infectivity depends on envelope protein binding to target cell heparan sulfate. Nat Med 1997; 3:866–871 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Rostand KS, Esko JD. Microbial adherence to and invasion through proteoglycans. Infect Immun 1997; 65:1–8 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Cagno V, Tseligka ED, Jones ST, Tapparel C. Heparan sulfate proteoglycans and viral attachment: true receptors or adaptation bias?. Viruses 2019; 11:596 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Chen Y, Götte M, Liu J, Park PW. Microbial subversion of heparan sulfate proteoglycans. Mol Cells 2008; 26:415–426
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jackson RL, Busch SJ, Cardin AD. Glycosaminoglycans: molecular properties, protein interactions, and role in physiological processes. Physiol Rev 1991; 71:481–539 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Sarrazin S, Lamanna WC, Esko JD. Heparan sulfate proteoglycans. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2011; 3:a004952 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lander AD, Selleck SB. The elusive functions of proteoglycans: in vivo veritas. J Cell Biol 2000; 148:227–232 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Bernfield M, Kokenyesi R, Kato M, Hinkes MT, Spring J et al. Biology of the syndecans: a family of transmembrane heparan sulfate proteoglycans. Annu Rev Cell Biol 1992; 8:365–393 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Cole GJ, Halfter W. Agrin: an extracellular matrix heparan sulfate proteoglycan involved in cell interactions and synaptogenesis. Perspect Dev Neurobiol 1996; 3:359–371 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Templeton DM. Proteoglycans in cell regulation. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 1992; 29:141–184 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Park PW, Reizes O, Bernfield M. Cell surface heparan sulfate proteoglycans: selective regulators of ligand-receptor encounters. J Biol Chem 2000; 275:29923–29926 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kim SY, Li B, Linhardt RJ. Pathogenesis and inhibition of flaviviruses from a carbohydrate perspective. Pharmaceuticals 2017; 10:E44 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Spear PG. Herpes simplex virus: receptors and ligands for cell entry. Cell Microbiol 2004; 6:401–410 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hileman RE, Fromm JR, Weiler JM, Linhardt RJ. Glycosaminoglycan–protein interactions: definition of consensus sites in glycosaminoglycan binding proteins. Bioessays 1998; 20:156–167 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Cardin AD, Weintraub HJ. Molecular modeling of protein–glycosaminoglycan interactions. Arteriosclerosis 1989; 9:21–32 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Margalit H, Fischer N, Ben-Sasson SA. Comparative analysis of structurally defined heparin binding sequences reveals a distinct spatial distribution of basic residues. J Biol Chem 1993; 268:19228–19231 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Neff S, Sá-Carvalho D, Rieder E, Mason PW, Blystone SD et al. Foot-and-mouth disease virus virulent for cattle utilizes the integrin alphavbeta3 as its receptor. J Virol 1998; 72:3587–3594 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Gardner CL, Choi-Nurvitadhi J, Sun C, Bayer A, Hritz J et al. Natural variation in the heparan sulfate binding domain of the eastern equine encephalitis virus E2 glycoprotein alters interactions with cell surfaces and virulence in mice. J Virol 2013; 87:8582–8590 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kjellén L, Lindahl U. Specificity of glycosaminoglycan–protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2018; 50:101–108 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. McKnight KL, Simpson DA, Lin SC, Knott TA, Polo JM et al. Deduced consensus sequence of Sindbis virus strain AR339: mutations contained in laboratory strains which affect cell culture and in vivo phenotypes. J Virol 1996; 70:1981–1989 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Klimstra WB, Ryman KD, Johnston RE. Adaptation of Sindbis virus to BHK cells selects for use of heparan sulfate as an attachment receptor. J Virol 1998; 72:7357–7366 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Smit JM, Waarts BL, Kimata K, Klimstra WB, Bittman R et al. Adaptation of alphaviruses to heparan sulfate: interaction of Sindbis and Semliki forest viruses with liposomes containing lipid-conjugated heparin. J Virol 2002; 76:10128–10137 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Bernard KA, Klimstra WB, Johnston RE. Mutations in the E2 glycoprotein of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus confer heparan sulfate interaction, low morbidity, and rapid clearance from blood of mice. Virology 2000; 276:93–103 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lee E, Lobigs M. E protein domain III determinants of yellow fever virus 17D vaccine strain enhance binding to glycosaminoglycans, impede virus spread, and attenuate virulence. J Virol 2008; 82:6024–6033 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Prestwood TR, Prigozhin DM, Sharar KL, Zellweger RM, Shresta S. A mouse-passaged dengue virus strain with reduced affinity for heparan sulfate causes severe disease in mice by establishing increased systemic viral loads. J Virol 2008; 82:8411–8421 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Heil ML, Albee A, Strauss JH, Kuhn RJ. An amino acid substitution in the coding region of the E2 glycoprotein adapts Ross River virus to utilize heparan sulfate as an attachment moiety. J Virol 2001; 75:6303–6309 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Byrnes AP, Griffin DE. Binding of Sindbis virus to cell surface heparan sulfate. J Virol 1998; 72:7349–7356 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Lee E, Lobigs M. Substitutions at the putative receptor-binding site of an encephalitic flavivirus alter virulence and host cell tropism and reveal a role for glycosaminoglycans in entry. J Virol 2000; 74:8867–8875 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Silva LA, Khomandiak S, Ashbrook AW, Weller R, Heise MT et al. A single-amino-acid polymorphism in Chikungunya virus E2 glycoprotein influences glycosaminoglycan utilization. J Virol 2014; 88:2385–2397 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. McAllister N, Liu Y, Silva LM, Lentscher AJ, Chai W et al. Chikungunya virus strains from each genetic clade bind sulfated glycosaminoglycans as attachment factors. J Virol 2020; 94:24 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Gardner CL, Ebel GD, Ryman KD, Klimstra WB. Heparan sulfate binding by natural eastern equine encephalitis viruses promotes neurovirulence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011; 108:16026–16031 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Germi R, Crance J-M, Garin D, Guimet J, Lortat-Jacob H et al. Heparan sulfate-mediated binding of infectious dengue virus type 2 and yellow fever virus. Virology 2002; 292:162–168 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Hilgard P, Stockert R. Heparan sulfate proteoglycans initiate dengue virus infection of hepatocytes. Hepatology 2000; 32:1069–1077 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Lee E, Pavy M, Young N, Freeman C, Lobigs M. Antiviral effect of the heparan sulfate mimetic, PI-88, against dengue and encephalitic flaviviruses. Antiviral Res 2006; 69:31–38 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Artpradit C, Robinson LN, Gavrilov BK, Rurak TT, Ruchirawat M et al. Recognition of heparan sulfate by clinical strains of dengue virus serotype 1 using recombinant subviral particles. Virus Res 2013; 176:69–77 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Lee E, Wright PJ, Davidson A, Lobigs M. Virulence attenuation of dengue virus due to augmented glycosaminoglycan-binding affinity and restriction in extraneural dissemination. J Gen Virol 2006; 87:2791–2801 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Kroschewski H, Allison SL, Heinz FX, Mandl CW. Role of heparan sulfate for attachment and entry of tick-borne encephalitis virus. Virology 2003; 308:92–100 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Chen H-L, Her S-Y, Huang K-C, Cheng H-T, Wu C-W et al. Identification of a heparin binding peptide from the Japanese encephalitis virus envelope protein. Biopolymers 2010; 94:331–338 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Kim SY, Zhao J, Liu X, Fraser K, Lin L et al. Interaction of zika virus envelope protein with glycosaminoglycans. Biochemistry 2017; 56:1151–1162 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lindenbach B, Randall G, Bartenschlager R. CM Rice Flaviviridae: the viruses and their replication. In Howley P, Knipe DM. eds Fields Virology Emerging Viruses, 7 ed. edn Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2020 p 246
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Lee E, Lobigs M. Mechanism of virulence attenuation of glycosaminoglycan-binding variants of Japanese encephalitis virus and Murray Valley encephalitis virus. J Virol 2002; 76:4901–4911 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Lee E, Hall RA, Lobigs M. Common E protein determinants for attenuation of glycosaminoglycan-binding variants of Japanese encephalitis and West Nile viruses. J Virol 2004; 78:8271–8280 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  74. de Boer SM, Kortekaas J, de Haan CAM, Rottier PJM, Moormann RJM et al. Heparan sulfate facilitates Rift Valley fever virus entry into the cell. J Virol 2012; 86:13767–13771 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Gardner CL, Hritz J, Sun C, Vanlandingham DL, Song TY et al. Deliberate attenuation of chikungunya virus by adaptation to heparan sulfate-dependent infectivity: a model for rational arboviral vaccine design. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2014; 8:e2719 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Gardner CL, Burke CW, Higgs ST, Klimstra WB, Ryman KD. Interferon-alpha/beta deficiency greatly exacerbates arthritogenic disease in mice infected with wild-type chikungunya virus but not with the cell culture-adapted live-attenuated 181/25 vaccine candidate. Virology 2012; 425:103–112 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Gorchakov R, Wang E, Leal G, Forrester NL, Plante K et al. Attenuation of Chikungunya virus vaccine strain 181/clone 25 is determined by two amino acid substitutions in the E2 envelope glycoprotein. J Virol 2012; 86:6084–6096 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Liu H, Chiou SS, Chen WJ. Differential binding efficiency between the envelope protein of Japanese encephalitis virus variants and heparan sulfate on the cell surface. J Med Virol 2004; 72:618–624 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Esko JD, Stanley P et al. Glycosylation Mutants of Cultured Cells. In Varki A, Cummings RD, Esko JD, Freeze HH, Stanley P. eds Essentials of Glycobiology, 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor (NY); 2009
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Banfield BW, Leduc Y, Esford L, Visalli RJ, Brandt CR et al. Evidence for an interaction of herpes simplex virus with chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans during infection. Virology 1995; 208:531–539 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Ryman KD, Gardner CL, Burke CW, Meier KC, Thompson JM et al. Heparan sulfate binding can contribute to the neurovirulence of neuroadapted and nonneuroadapted Sindbis viruses. J Virol 2007; 81:3563–3573 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Desai UR, Wang HM, Linhardt RJ. Specificity studies on the heparin lyases from Flavobacterium heparinum. Biochemistry 1993; 32:8140–8145 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhao Z, Date T, Li Y, Kato T, Miyamoto M et al. Characterization of the E-138 (Glu/Lys) mutation in Japanese encephalitis virus by using a stable, full-length, infectious cDNA clone. J Gen Virol 2005; 86:2209–2220 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kuhn RJ. Togaviridae: The Viruses and Their Replication. In Howley PM, Knipe DM, Whelan S. eds Fields Virology: Emerging Viruses, 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2020 p 194
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Mandl CW, Kroschewski H, Allison SL, Kofler R, Holzmann H et al. Adaptation of tick-borne encephalitis virus to BHK-21 cells results in the formation of multiple heparan sulfate binding sites in the envelope protein and attenuation in vivo. J Virol 2001; 75:5627–5637 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Gauczynski S, Peyrin JM, Haïk S, Leucht C, Hundt C et al. The 37-kDa/67-kDa laminin receptor acts as the cell-surface receptor for the cellular prion protein. EMBO J 2001; 20:5863–5875 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Tanaka A, Tumkosit U, Nakamura S, Motooka D, Kishishita N et al. Genome-wide screening uncovers the significance of N-sulfation of heparan sulfate as a host cell factor for chikungunya virus Infection. J Virol 2017; 91:13 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Riblett AM, Blomen VA, Jae LT, Altamura LA, Doms RW et al. A haploid genetic screen identifies heparan sulfate proteoglycans supporting Rift Valley fever virus infection. J Virol 2016; 90:1414–1423 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Jan JT, Byrnes AP, Griffin DE. Characterization of a Chinese hamster ovary cell line developed by retroviral insertional mutagenesis that is resistant to Sindbis virus infection. J Virol 1999; 73:4919–4924 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Savidis G, McDougall WM, Meraner P, Perreira JM, Portmann JM et al. Identification of Zika virus and dengue virus dependency factors using functional genomics. Cell Rep 2016; 16:232–246 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Gao H, Lin Y, He J, Zhou S, Liang M et al. Role of heparan sulfate in the Zika virus entry, replication, and cell death. Virology 2019; 529:91–100 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Tan CW, Sam IC, Chong WL, Lee VS, Chan YF. Polysulfonate suramin inhibits Zika virus infection. Antiviral Res 2017; 143:186–194 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Nickells J, Cannella M, Droll DA, Liang Y, Wold WSM et al. Neuroadapted yellow fever virus strain 17D: a charged locus in domain III of the E protein governs heparin binding activity and neuroinvasiveness in the SCID mouse model. J Virol 2008; 82:12510–12519 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Wang X, Li S-H, Zhu L, Nian Q-G, Yuan S et al. Near-atomic structure of Japanese encephalitis virus reveals critical determinants of virulence and stability. Nat Commun 2017; 8:14 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Kozlovskaya LI, Osolodkin DI, Shevtsova AS, Romanova LI, Rogova YV et al. GAG-binding variants of tick-borne encephalitis virus. Virology 2010; 398:262–272 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Westlake D, Bielefeldt-Ohmann H, Prow NAA, Hall RAA. Novel flavivirus attenuation markers identified in the envelope protein of Alfuy virus. Viruses 2021; 13:147 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Raaben M, Jae LT, Herbert AS, Kuehne AI, Stubbs SH et al. NRP2 and CD63 are host factors for Lujo virus cell entry. Cell Host Microbe 2017; 22:688–696 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Lamers MM, Mykytyn AZ, Breugem TI, Wang Y, Wu DC et al. Human airway cells prevent SARS-CoV-2 multibasic cleavage site cell culture adaptation. Elife 2021; 10:e66815 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Klimstra WB, Tilston-Lunel NL, Nambulli S, Boslett J, McMillen CM et al. SARS-CoV-2 growth, furin-cleavage-site adaptation and neutralization using serum from acutely infected hospitalized COVID-19 patients. J Gen Virol 2020; 101:1156–1169 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Byrnes AP, Griffin DE. Large-plaque mutants of Sindbis virus show reduced binding to heparan sulfate, heightened viremia, and slower clearance from the circulation. J Virol 2000; 74:644–651 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Klimstra WB, Ryman KD, Bernard KA, Nguyen KB, Biron CA et al. Infection of neonatal mice with sindbis virus results in a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. J Virol 1999; 73:10387–10398 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Kobayashi K, Sudaka Y, Takashino A, Imura A, Fujii K et al. Amino acid variation at VP1-145 of enterovirus 71 determines attachment receptor usage and neurovirulence in human scavenger receptor B2 transgenic mice. J Virol 2018; 92:15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Griffin DE, Levine B, Tyor WR, Tucker PC, Hardwick JM. Age-dependent susceptibility to fatal encephalitis: alphavirus infection of neurons. Arch Virol Suppl 1994; 9:31–39 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Knight RL, Schultz KLW, Kent RJ, Venkatesan M, Griffin DE. Role of N-linked glycosylation for sindbis virus infection and replication in vertebrate and invertebrate systems. J Virol 2009; 83:5640–5647 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Trobaugh DW, Gardner CL, Sun C, Haddow AD, Wang E et al. RNA viruses can hijack vertebrate microRNAs to suppress innate immunity. Nature 2014; 506:245–248 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Chen C-L, Hasan SS, Klose T, Sun Y, Buda G et al. Cryo-EM structure of eastern equine encephalitis virus in complex with heparan sulfate analogues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020; 117:8890–8899 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Reddi HV, Kumar ASM, Kung AY, Kallio PD, Schlitt BP et al. Heparan sulfate-independent infection attenuates high-neurovirulence GDVII virus-induced encephalitis. J Virol 2004; 78:8909–8916 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Hulst MM, van Gennip HG, Vlot AC, Schooten E, de Smit AJ et al. Interaction of classical swine fever virus with membrane-associated heparan sulfate: role for virus replication in vivo and virulence. J Virol 2001; 75:9585–9595 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Lipton HL, Kumar ASM, Hertzler S, Reddi HV. Differential usage of carbohydrate co-receptors influences cellular tropism of Theiler’s murine encephalomyelitis virus infection of the central nervous system. Glycoconj J 2006; 23:39–49 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Ferguson MC, Saul S, Fragkoudis R, Weisheit S, Cox J et al. Ability of the encephalitic arbovirus Semliki Forest virus to cross the blood–brain barrier is determined by the charge of the E2 glycoprotein. J Virol 2015; 89:7536–7549 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Zhu W, Li J, Liang G. How does cellular heparan sulfate function in viral pathogenicity?. Biomed Environ Sci 2011; 24:81–87 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Weaver SC, Forrester NL, Liu J, Vasilakis N. Population bottlenecks and founder effects: implications for mosquito-borne arboviral emergence. Nat Rev Microbiol 2021; 19:184–195 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Franz AWE, Kantor AM, Passarelli AL, Clem RJ. Tissue barriers to arbovirus infection in mosquitoes. Viruses 2015; 7:3741–3767 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Mao Q, Wu W, Liao Z, Li J, Jia D et al. Viral pathogens hitchhike with insect sperm for paternal transmission. Nat Commun 2019; 10:955 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Ciano KA, Saredy JJ, Bowers DF. Heparan sulfate proteoglycan: an arbovirus attachment factor integral to mosquito salivary gland ducts. Viruses 2014; 6:5182–5197 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Armistead JS, Wilson IBH, van Kuppevelt TH, Dinglasan RR. A role for heparan sulfate proteoglycans in Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite invasion of anopheline mosquito salivary glands. Biochem J 2011; 438:475–483 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Dinglasan RR, Alaganan A, Ghosh AK, Saito A, van Kuppevelt TH et al. Plasmodium falciparum ookinetes require mosquito midgut chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans for cell invasion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104:15882–15887 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Sinnis P, Coppi A, Toida T, Toyoda H, Kinoshita-Toyoda A et al. Mosquito heparan sulfate and its potential role in malaria infection and transmission. J Biol Chem 2007; 282:25376–25384 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Shao L, Devenport M, Jacobs-Lorena M. The peritrophic matrix of hematophagous insects. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 2001; 47:119–125 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Spring J, Paine-Saunders SE, Hynes RO, Bernfield M. Drosophila syndecan: conservation of a cell-surface heparan sulfate proteoglycan. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994; 91:3334–3338 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Kim SY, Koetzner CA, Payne AF, Nierode GJ, Yu Y et al. Glycosaminoglycan compositional analysis of relevant tissues in Zika virus pathogenesis and in vitro evaluation of heparin as an antiviral against Zika virus infection. Biochemistry 2019; 58:1155–1166 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Conway MJ, Watson AM, Colpitts TM, Dragovic SM, Li Z et al. Mosquito saliva serine protease enhances dissemination of dengue virus into the mammalian host. J Virol 2014; 88:164–175 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Acharya D, Paul AM, Anderson JF, Huang F, Bai F. Loss of glycosaminoglycan receptor binding after mosquito cell passage reduces Chikungunya virus infectivity. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2015; 9:e0004139 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Coffey LL, Vasilakis N, Brault AC, Powers AM, Tripet F et al. Arbovirus evolution in vivo is constrained by host alternation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008; 105:6970–6975 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Lawrence R, Yabe T, Hajmohammadi S, Rhodes J, McNeely M et al. The principal neuronal gD-type 3-O-sulfotransferases and their products in central and peripheral nervous system tissues. Matrix Biol 2007; 26:442–455 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Tiwari V, Tarbutton MS, Shukla D. Diversity of heparan sulfate and HSV entry: basic understanding and treatment strategies. Molecules 2015; 20:2707–2727 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Shukla D, Liu J, Blaiklock P, Shworak NW, Bai X et al. A novel role for 3-O-sulfated heparan sulfate in herpes simplex virus 1 entry. Cell 1999; 99:13–22 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Basore K, Kim AS, Nelson CA, Zhang R, Smith BK et al. Cryo-EM structure of chikungunya virus in complex with the Mxra8 receptor. Cell 2019; 177:1725–1737 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Basore K, Ma H, Kafai NM, Mackin S, Kim AS et al. Structure of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus in complex with the LDLRAD3 receptor. Nature 2021; 598:672–676 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Andrade AS, Ferreira RS, Guedes MIMC, Dias J, Pinheiro MA et al. Dengue virus 3 genotype I shows natural changes in heparan sulphate binding sites, cell interactions, and neurovirulence in a mouse model. J Gen Virol 2021; 102: [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Su CM, Liao CL, Lee YL, Lin YL. Highly sulfated forms of heparin sulfate are involved in Japanese encephalitis virus infection. Virology 2001; 286:206–215 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Pietrantoni A, Fortuna C, Remoli ME, Ciufolini MG, Superti F. Bovine lactoferrin inhibits Toscana virus infection by binding to heparan sulphate. Viruses 2015; 7:480–495 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Murakami S, Takenaka-Uema A, Kobayashi T, Kato K, Shimojima M et al. Heparan sulfate proteoglycan Is an important attachment factor for cell entry of Akabane and Schmallenberg viruses. J Virol 2017; 91:15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/jgv.0.001726
Loading
Glycosaminoglycan binding by arboviruses: a cautionary tale
J. Gen. Virol. 103, 001726 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001726
/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/jgv.0.001726
/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/jgv.0.001726
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error