J Gen Virol Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Gen Virol 64 (1983), 795-803; DOI 10.1099/0022-1317-64-4-795
© 1983 Society for General Microbiology

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tisdale, M.
Right arrow Articles by Selway, J. W. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tisdale, M.
Right arrow Articles by Selway, J. W. T.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Tisdale, M.
Right arrow Articles by Selway, J. W. T.

Inhibition of an Early Stage of Rhinovirus Replication by Dichloroflavan (BW683C)

Margaret Tisdale and J. W. T. Selway

Wellcome Research Laboratories, Langley Court, Beckenham, Kent, BR3 3BS, U.K.

The mechanism of action of a new anti-rhinovirus compound, dichloroflavan, was examined using a variety of techniques. Dichloroflavan was shown to bind to the highly sensitive rhinovirus type 1B (50% inhibitory concentration 0.007 µMm) and at a much lower level to the insensitive rhinovirus type 4 (50% inhibitory concentration > 25 µM). Binding of the compound to rhinovirus 1B was accompanied by a reduction (about 0.5 log10 units) in virus infectivity which could be restored by treatment with chloroform. Maximum inhibition of virus yield (about 2 log10 units) occurred only when compound and virus were added together, but some inhibition (about 0.7 log10 units) occurred even when the compound was added near the end of a single cycle of replication. This late reduction in infectivity could be abolished by treating with chloroform, and was therefore caused by the compound binding to progeny virus. The compound did not interfere with adsorption of virus to cells, nor with uncoating of the viral RNA. However, little or no viral RNA and protein synthesis occurred in the presence of dichloroflavan provided that the compound was added with the virus. Addition of the compound after virus adsorption had no effect on either viral RNA or protein synthesis. These results indicate that dichloroflavan binds directly to rhinovirus 1B and appears to prevent virus replication at a point immediately after uncoating of the viral RNA.

Keywords: rhinovirus inhibition, dichloroflavan, mode of action

Received 26 July 1982; accepted 15 November 1982.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL MICROBIOLOGY J GEN VIROL
J MED MICROBIOL ALL SGM JOURNALS
Copyright © 1983 by the Society for General Microbiology.