| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Short Communication |
Laboratory of Virology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
Correspondence
Hans J. Nauwynck
hans.nauwynck{at}UGent.be
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT MAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
|
MAIN TEXT |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
). This accelerated FIP has been the reason for the failure of most vaccination attempts (Woods & Pedersen, 1979; Pedersen & Black, 1983; Barlough et al., 1984, 1985; Vennema et al., 1990; McArdle et al., 1992). A mechanism was proposed that could explain this accelerated development of FIP in the presence of antibodies: antibody-dependent enhancement of infectivity (ADEI) (Hohdatsu et al., 1991; Corapi et al., 1992; Olsen et al., 1992). ADEI suggests that antibodies might help the spread of the virus in an infected cat by facilitating the virus uptake through the formation of virus–antibody complexes that are taken up by uninfected monocytes/macrophages via the Fc receptor. ADEI may explain why a larger number of cells can be infected in the presence of antibodies, but it cannot explain why these infected cells are not eliminated by the immune system. It is believed that the only effective defence against FIP is cell-mediated immunity (Pedersen, 1987).
The role of antibodies in the pathogenesis of naturally occurring FIP and, more specifically, how antibodies interact with infected cells is unknown. In the present study, we investigated the effect of FCoV-specific antibodies on FCoV-infected monocytes to clarify why antibodies seem to be unable to identify infected cells and/or mark them for antibody-dependent cell lysis. Feline coronavirus (FCoV)-, Feline leukemia virus (FeLV)- and Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV)-negative cats were used as blood donors. Monocytes were isolated as described previously (Dewerchin et al., 2005) and seeded on glass coverslips, which allowed mounting on microscope slides using glycerin/DABCO (Janssen Chimica). The adherent cells consisted of 86±7 % monocytes (assessed with monocyte marker DH59B; Veterinary Medical Research and Development). At 36 h post-seeding, monocytes were inoculated at an m.o.i. of 5 with third passages of FIPV 79-1146 and FECV 79-1683 on Crandell feline kidney (CrFK) cells (McKeirnan et al., 1981). FIPV 79-1146 was obtained from the ATCC and FECV 79-1683 was kindly provided by Dr Egberink (Utrecht University, The Netherlands). Twelve hours after inoculation, monocytes were incubated with feline biotinylated anti-FCoV polyclonal antibodies (kindly provided by Dr Egberink). At different times post-antibody addition, cells were fixed with 1 % formaldehyde, permeabilized with 0.1 % Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich) and incubated with streptavidin–fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) (Molecular Probes). In order to find the infected cells in the population easily, the cells were incubated with a mixture of mAbs 7-4-1, F19-1 and E22-2, recognizing respectively the Spike (S), Membrane (M) and Nucleocapsid (N) proteins (kindly provided by Dr Hohdatsu, Kitasato University, Japan), and visualized with goat anti-mouse–Texas red (Molecular Probes) (not shown). For the controls, cells were incubated with non-specific polyclonal antibodies that were obtained from specific-pathogen-free cats vaccinated with Nobivac Tricat (Intervet). After fixation of the cells, surface expression of viral proteins was visualized by a subsequent incubation with a mixture of anti-S and anti-M mAbs and goat anti-mouse–Texas red. Next, the cells were permeabilized and incubated with goat anti-cat–FITC (Sigma-Aldrich) to visualize possible internalization caused by the non-specific polyclonal antibodies (not shown). In Fig. 1(a), confocal images illustrate that, after FCoV-specific antibody addition, the surface-expressed viral proteins moved from the plasma membrane into the cytoplasm. In contrast, after addition of non-specific antibodies, the surface-expressed viral proteins remained in the plasma membrane. Fig. 1(c) shows that internalization of the viral glycoproteins was initiated very shortly after antibody addition and was completed rapidly. In the graph, the internalization was represented as the percentage of cells that were internalizing viral proteins and not as number of internalized antibody–antigen complexes per cell, because the amount of viral proteins that is expressed in the plasma membrane varies strongly between cells (Dewerchin et al., 2005). The curves indicate that 89±9 and 84±4 % of respectively FIPV- and FECV-infected monocytes showed internalization of the plasma membrane-bound viral proteins after 3 min incubation. At 30 min, almost 100 % of the infected monocytes internalized their membrane-bound proteins (98±3 and 97±4 % for FIPV and FECV infection, respectively). Considering that an immune-evasive nature is attributed only to FIPV, it was remarkable to find that FIPV and FECV show almost-identical internalization kinetics. These identical kinetics imply that the difference between FIPV and FECV pathogenesis cannot be explained by the ability to internalize viral proteins. Fig. 1(c) also shows that internalization was not observed after addition of non-specific antibodies. This indicates that specific Fab–antigen interactions are needed and that the internalization is not mediated by the Fc-binding capacity that has been described for the S protein of several coronaviruses (Oleszak et al., 1993). To confirm that the membrane-bound structures were single proteins and not virus particles, infected cells were fixed and membrane expression was visualized. Then, the cells (and virus membrane) were permeabilized and nucleocapsid proteins were stained. No co-localization was found between the nucleocapsid and membrane-bound proteins, which shows that the structures were single proteins (data not shown).
|
shows that a temperature shift by itself did not lead to internalization; nor did incubation with non-specific antibodies. Only monocytes that were incubated with anti-FCoV antibodies showed internalized proteins. These results indicate that spontaneous internalization did not occur.
To further specify which membrane-bound viral proteins are of importance for the internalization process, the redistribution of proteins induced by mAbs directed against the S or M protein was studied. At 12 h after inoculation, monocytes were incubated with anti-S (7-4-1, subisotype IgG2b), anti-M (F19-1, subisotype IgG1) or a combination of both antibodies. At different times post-antibody addition, cells were fixed, permeabilized and incubated with goat anti-mouse–Texas red to visualize the distribution of the antigen–antibody complexes. Next, the cells were incubated with FITC-labelled anti-FIPV antibodies to allow easy recognition of infected cells (not shown). The confocal images in Fig. 2(a) illustrate that both anti-S and anti-M antibodies were able to induce internalization. Fig. 2(b) shows that 82±9 and 66±4 % of the infected cells showed internalization at 10 min after addition of anti-S or anti-M antibodies, respectively. These percentages further increased and, after 1 h incubation with anti-S or anti-M antibodies, respectively 85±4 and 81±4 % of the cells showed internalization. The results demonstrate that internalization induced by mAbs occurred less efficiently than internalization induced by polyclonal anti-FIPV antibodies. Incubation with both anti-S and anti-M antibodies led to internalization in 100 % of infected monocytes; thus, the same efficiency was reached as with polyclonal antibodies. In cells where all antigen–antibody complexes were internalized with one monoclonal antibody against S or M protein, no residual expression could be found in the plasma membrane by using a polyclonal antibody (data not shown). In cells where not all complexes were internalized with one mAb against the S or M protein, the complexes that were in the plasma membrane could also be stained for the other protein (data not shown). These results indicate that S and M proteins reside in the plasma membrane as complexes. Interactions between the S and M proteins have already been described in mouse hepatitis virus infection, during which the M and S proteins form heteromultimeric complexes (Opstelten et al., 1995). Taken together, these findings suggest that S and M proteins operate together to mediate the internalization process. Internalization could not be induced by using anti-N antibodies (data not shown). As the mAbs against S and M protein are of mouse origin, non-specific mouse monoclonals of the same isotype were tested as a control in order to exclude isotype-specific interactions. Inoculated monocytes were incubated for different time periods with a mixture of non-specific, isotype-matched mAbs: 41D3 (isotype IgG1), recognizing porcine sialoadhesin, and Mil2 (isotype IgG2b), recognizing porcine CD14 (Duan et al., 1998; Thacker et al., 2001; Vanderheijden et al., 2003). After fixation of the cells, surface expression of viral proteins was visualized by incubation with biotinylated anti-FCoV polyclonal antibodies and then streptavidin–Texas red (Molecular Probes). Next, the cells were permeabilized and incubated with goat anti-mouse–FITC (Sigma-Aldrich) to visualize possible internalization caused by the non-specific mAbs. No internalized, non-specific antibodies were found (not shown). Fig. 2(a) shows that addition of non-specific antibodies did not lead to internalization, confirming that the internalization process requires FCoV-specific antibodies and is not mediated by isotype-specific interactions.
|
shows that the cell lines expressed viral proteins on their cell surface and that, after addition of antibodies, the antigens were somewhat more clustered than in non-treated cells. However, internalization was not observed. These findings suggest that the internalization process requires cellular machinery that is not, or not completely, present in cell lines. It also means that a more thorough study of this internalization pathway using dominant-negative mutants will be hampered by the lack of adequate cell lines.
|
. They found that viral plasma membrane-bound proteins in Pseudorabies virus (PrV)-infected pig monocytes were internalized upon antibody addition. This internalization process is clathrin-mediated and dependent on a YXX
motif (Y stands for tyrosine, X for any amino acid and for a bulky hydrophobic amino acid) in the cytoplasmic tail of the gB protein (Van de Walle et al., 2001; Favoreel et al., 2002). The viral plasma membrane-bound proteins in FIPV-infected cells (S and M) contain putative internalization motifs in their cytoplasmic tails. The S protein contains a dileucine motif and a YXX motif and the M protein contains two of each. The presence of these putative internalization motifs is another indication that both viral proteins are of importance in antibody-mediated internalization. The role of these motifs will be investigated in the future.
In previous work, we reported that only half of FIPV-infected monocytes express viral proteins on their plasma membrane (Dewerchin et al., 2005). Here, we report that cells that do express viral proteins internalize these proteins upon antibody addition. With these findings, the following hypothetical model may aid in explaining FIP pathogenesis. In an FIPV-infected cat, a proportion of the FIPV-infected monocytes may remain immune-masked because no viral antigens are expressed at the plasma membrane and a proportion of the cells may express viral proteins. When antibodies bind to these membrane-bound proteins to mark the infected cells for cell lysis, internalization may be triggered. The plasma membrane is cleared of viral proteins and the infected cell remains invisible to the humoral immune system. In this way, the cell may be able to continue the production of progeny virus without being eliminated or it may enter a quiescent-infection state, as is seen in PrV-infected monocytes that were cultured in the presence of specific antibodies (Favoreel et al., 2003). This quiescent infection state would be an excellent cover for a carrier cell and might explain the sometimes long incubation period of an FIPV infection. For PrV-infected pig monocytes, it has also been shown that cells with internalized viral glycoproteins are protected against antibody-dependent, complement-mediated cell lysis (Van de Walle et al., 2003). Whether this is also true for an FIPV-infected monocyte will be investigated in the near future.
In conclusion, it can be stated that surface-expressed viral proteins in FIPV- and FECV-infected monocytes are internalized upon FCoV-specific antibody addition in a very efficient manner. This internalization does not occur spontaneously; nor can it be induced by non-specific antibodies. These findings might lead to new insights in strategies for immune evasion developed by feline coronaviruses.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
Barlough, J. E., Johnson-Lussenburg, C. M., Stoddart, C. A., Jacobson, R. H. & Scott, F. W. (1985). Experimental inoculation of cats with human coronavirus 229E and subsequent challenge with feline infectious peritonitis virus. Can J Comp Med 49, 303–307.[Medline]
Corapi, W. V., Olsen, C. W. & Scott, F. W. (1992). Monoclonal antibody analysis of neutralization and antibody-dependent enhancement of feline infectious peritonitis virus. J Virol 66, 6695–6705.
Dewerchin, H. L., Cornelissen, E. & Nauwynck, H. J. (2005). Replication of feline coronaviruses in peripheral blood monocytes. Arch Virol 150, 2483–2500.[Medline]
Duan, X., Nauwynck, H. J., Favoreel, H. & Pensaert, M. B. (1998). Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection of alveolar macrophages can be blocked by monoclonal antibodies against cell surface antigens. Adv Exp Med Biol 440, 81–88.[Medline]
Favoreel, H. W., Nauwynck, H. J., Halewyck, H., Van Oostveldt, P., Mettenleiter, T. C. & Pensaert, M. B. (1999). Antibody-induced endocytosis of viral glycoproteins and major histocompatibility complex class I on pseudorabies virus-infected monocytes. J Gen Virol 80, 1283–1291.[Abstract]
Favoreel, H. W., Van Minnebruggen, G., Nauwynck, H. J., Enquist, L. W. & Pensaert, M. B. (2002). A tyrosine-based motif in the cytoplasmic tail of pseudorabies virus glycoprotein B is important for both antibody-induced internalization of viral glycoproteins and efficient cell-to-cell spread. J Virol 76, 6845–6851.
Favoreel, H. W., Van de Walle, G. R., Nauwynck, H. J., Mettenleiter, T. C. & Pensaert, M. B. (2003). Pseudorabies virus (PRV)-specific antibodies suppress intracellular viral protein levels in PRV-infected monocytes. J Gen Virol 84, 2969–2973.
Hohdatsu, T., Nakamura, M., Ishizuka, Y., Yamada, H. & Koyama, H. (1991). A study on the mechanism of antibody-dependent enhancement of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection in feline macrophages by monoclonal antibodies. Arch Virol 120, 207–217.[CrossRef][Medline]
McArdle, F., Bennett, M., Gaskell, R. M., Tennant, B., Kelly, D. F. & Gaskell, C. J. (1992). Induction and enhancement of feline infectious peritonitis by canine coronavirus. Am J Vet Res 53, 1500–1506.[Medline]
McKeirnan, A. J., Evermann, J. F., Hargis, A., Miller, L. M. & Ott, R. L. (1981). Isolation of feline coronaviruses from two cats with diverse disease manifestations. Feline Pract 11, 16–20.
Oleszak, E. L., Perlman, S., Parr, R., Collisson, E. W. & Leibowitz, J. L. (1993). Molecular mimicry between S peplomer proteins of coronaviruses (MHV, BCV, TGEV and IBV) and Fc receptor. Adv Exp Med Biol 342, 183–188.[Medline]
Olsen, C. W., Corapi, W. V., Ngichabe, C. K., Baines, J. D. & Scott, F. W. (1992). Monoclonal antibodies to the spike protein of feline infectious peritonitis virus mediate antibody-dependent enhancement of infection of feline macrophages. J Virol 66, 956–965.
Opstelten, D.-J. E., Raamsman, M. J. B., Wolfs, K., Horzinek, M. C. & Rottier, P. J. M. (1995). Envelope glycoprotein interactions in coronavirus assembly. J Cell Biol 131, 339–349.
Pedersen, N. C. (1987). Virologic and immunologic aspects of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection. Adv Exp Med Biol 218, 529–550.[Medline]
Pedersen, N. C. & Black, J. W. (1983). Attempted immunization of cats against feline infectious peritonitis, using either avirulent live virus or sublethal amounts of virulent virus. Am J Vet Res 44, 229–234.[Medline]
Pedersen, N. C. & Boyle, J. F. (1980). Immunologic phenomena in the effusive form of feline infectious peritonitis. Am J Vet Res 41, 868–876.[Medline]
Thacker, E., Summerfield, A., McCullough, K., Ezquerra, A., Dominguez, J., Alonso, F., Lunney, J., Sinkora, J. & Haverson, K. (2001). Summary of workshop findings for porcine myelomonocytic markers. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 80, 93–109.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vanderheijden, N., Delputte, P. L., Favoreel, H. W., Vandekerckhove, J., Van Damme, J., van Woensel, P. A. & Nauwynck, H. J. (2003). Involvement of sialoadhesin in entry of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus into alveolar macrophages. J Virol 77, 8207–8215.
Van de Walle, G. R., Favoreel, H. W., Nauwynck, H. J., Van Oostveldt, P. & Pensaert, M. B. (2001). Involvement of cellular cytoskeleton components in antibody-induced internalization of viral glycoproteins in pseudorabies virus-infected monocytes. Virology 288, 129–138.[CrossRef][Medline]
Van de Walle, G. R., Favoreel, H. W., Nauwynck, H. J. & Pensaert, M. B. (2003). Antibody-induced internalization of viral glycoproteins and gE–gI Fc receptor activity protect pseudorabies virus-infected monocytes from efficient complement-mediated lysis. J Gen Virol 84, 939–947.
Vennema, H., de Groot, R. J., Harbour, D. A., Dalderup, M., Gruffydd-Jones, T., Horzinek, M. C. & Spaan, W. J. M. (1990). Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vaccinia virus immunization. J Virol 64, 1407–1409.
Woods, R. D. & Pedersen, N. C. (1979). Cross-protection studies between feline infectious peritonitis and porcine transmissible gastroenteritis viruses. Vet Microbiol 4, 11–16.
Received 17 November 2005;
accepted 7 February 2006.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. L. Dewerchin, E. Cornelissen, E. Van Hamme, K. Smits, B. Verhasselt, and H. J. Nauwynck Surface-expressed viral proteins in feline infectious peritonitis virus-infected monocytes are internalized through a clathrin- and caveolae-independent pathway J. Gen. Virol., November 1, 2008; 89(11): 2731 - 2740. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL | MICROBIOLOGY | J GEN VIROL |
| J MED MICROBIOL | ALL SGM JOURNALS | |
-FCoV or non-specific polyclonal antibodies. (b) Spontaneous-internalization assay. The distribution of surface-expressed proteins was visualized at 0 or 30 min incubation with RPMI medium, 
, FIPV; 
, FECV; 
, non-specific polyclonal antibody. Data represent means±SD of triplicate assays.
, anti-M mAb; 