Binding of the viral particle is a crucial step in the
establishment of viral infection and subsequent viral replication. In the case
of Coronaviridae, the binding of the virus is mediated viral spike protein, a
homotrimer composed of subunits that are about 150 kDa in size each. The spike
protein itself is composed of two subunits, S1 and S2, the former sufficient
for receptor binding and the latter required for the fusion and entry of the
virus particle. During the viral replication the S protein is synthesized as a
precursor protein and co-translationally glycosylated in the Golgi followed by
a cleavage generating the S1 and S2 subunits at a dibasic cleavage site
(BBXBB). The S1 subunit contains the receptor-binding site (RBD) followed (in
the case of MHV) by a hypervariable region, whereas the S2 subunit contains two
heptad repeats (HR1 and 2) as well as the transmembrane region.
Domains of a prototype Coronavirus S potein |
Of particular interest is the RBD since blocking peptides or
neutralizing antibodies designed to bind the RBD might be used in treating
Coronavirus caused diseases, not only in humans (such as SARS or MERS) but also
in animals. On the other hand, based on experiments done using the murine
Coronavirus (MHV) the heptad repeat domains as well as the putative fusion
peptide located within the S2 subdomain may play an important role in the
formation of syncytia and thus may contribute to the CPE. Furthermore, the HR
might also play a role in the interaction of the RBD with the cellular receptor
during viral entry, probably by stabilizing the receptor-RBD complex not only
in the case of MHV but also SARS-CoV.
In the past years, however a number of Coronaviruses have
been shown to not only contain one but two RBD, one located at the C-terminal
end of S1 which is responsible for binding the cellular receptor and an
additional one located at the N-terminal end of S1 binding sialic acid. In
general, the consensus is that binding to sialic acid by the S1 subunit allows
Coronavirus’ to bind to epithelial target cells of the respiratory tract as
well the intestine which are normally covered by mucus and thus not readily
accessible. This is particular true for members of the Alpha-, Beta-, and
Gammacoronaviridae which bind to ciliated intestine and respiratory cells, such
as the porcine TGEV and PEDV as well as the enteric feline Coronavirus (FECV)
but also for the bovine Coronavirus (BCoV) and the human Coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43)
as well as the avian Infectious Bronchitis Virus (IBV). In contrast, MERS-CoV
generally does bind and infect primarily non-ciliated bronchial epithelial and alveolar cells of the lower lung and thus might not need sialic acid to bind to DPP4 (although hDPP4 does
have sialic acid residues).
Feline Enteric Coronavirus (FECV)
Feline intestinal epithelial cells derived from the Ileum
and the Colon (illenocytes and coloncytes respectively) pretreated with
neuroaminidase exhibit an increase in the efficiency of FECV infection,
suggesting that sialic acid might inhibit viral entry. Based on results showing
that the pretreatment of porcine TGEV strain Perdue and PEDV with
neuroaminidase can unmask the viral sialic acid binding activity, similar
experiments confirmed these results for FECV. The application of α2-6-sialyllactose
binds and reduces the infectivity of pretreated FECV, demonstrating FECV can
bind α2-6-sialic acid. Desialylated cells however were
resistant to inhibition of inhibition by α2-6-sialyllactose
treatment. FECV therefore does have
a sialic acid binding capacity, which during the passage of
the virus through the stomach may be partially masked by virus-associated
sialic acids. In the absence of viral enzymes removing virus-associated sialic
acids, enzymes within the mucus might remove the sialic acid thus allowing FECV
to bind its cellular receptor and thus requiring sialidases for efficient
enterocyte infections.
Infectious Bronchitis Virus (IBV)
Although the receptor for the avian Infectious Bronchitis
Virus is unknown it is known that the treatment of Vero, BHK (Baby Hamster
Kidney) as well as primer chicken kidney cells with neuroaminidase -an enzyme
which cleaves sialic acid- renders cell lines resistant to infection with IBV
strains Beaudette and M41. Moreover, IBV is more sensitive than Sendai or
Influenza A virus to pretreatment of cells with neuroaminidase suggesting that
IBV requires a higher amount of sialic acid than Influenza A or Sendai and
indeed it has been shown that IBV preferentially recognizes α2,3-linked
sialic acid as indicated by reacting with lectin. Indeed the infection of the
tracheal organ cultures can be inhibited by pretreatment with neuroaminidase. The binding of α2,3-linked sialic acid
might be only required for the initial binding of IBV preceding binding to the
receptor although the sialic acid binding activity of IBV S protein seems to be more important for viral entry than the sialic acid binding activity of TGEV S protein. This is reflected by the abundance of α2-3 linked sialic acid on susceptible epithelial cells.
In general, the masking of the viral sialic acid binding
site might protect the enteric Coronavirus particles from degradation in the stomach or by gastric
mucins. Bacterial and host derived sialidases unmasking these binding site then
would allow the virus to attach to the mucin and infect cells of the intestinal
tract. In the avian respiratory tract α2-3 linked sialic acid is a common receptor for respiratory viruses such as avian Influenza A.
So finally what has this to do with emerging Coronaviruses?
As I mentioned above so far there is no indication that MERS-CoV S has sialic
acid binding activity nor that the primary target cells necessitate this
activity. The novel Coronavirus identified in dromedaries however seems to be
an enteric Coronavirus and thus the S protein might bind sialic acid. However, once the genome of DcCoV UAE-HKU23 has been
sequenced, we should know more. One final word about the potential use of neuroaminidase inhibitors which are quite effective in treating Influenza A virus infections: they are not effective against Coronavirus induced infections since Coronaviridae are not dependent on the sialic acid binding to its cognate receptor.
Further reading
Vlasak R, Luytjes W, Spaan W, & Palese P (1988). Human and bovine coronaviruses recognize sialic acid-containing receptors similar to those of influenza C viruses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 85 (12), 4526-9 PMID: 3380803
Shahwan K, Hesse M, Mork AK, Herrler G, & Winter C (2013). Sialic acid binding properties of soluble coronavirus spike (S1) proteins: differences between infectious bronchitis virus and transmissible gastroenteritis virus. Viruses, 5 (8), 1924-33 PMID: 23896748
Winter C, Herrler G, & Neumann U (2008). Infection of the tracheal epithelium by infectious bronchitis virus is sialic acid dependent. Microbes and infection / Institut Pasteur, 10 (4), 367-73 PMID: 18396435
Schmauser B, Kilian C, Reutter W, & Tauber R (1999). Sialoforms of dipeptidylpeptidase IV from rat kidney and liver. Glycobiology, 9 (12), 1295-305 PMID: 10561454
Krempl C, Schultze B, Laude H, & Herrler G (1997). Point mutations in the S protein connect the sialic acid binding activity with the enteropathogenicity of transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus. Journal of virology, 71 (4), 3285-7 PMID: 9060696
Schwegmann-Weßels, C., Bauer, S., Winter, C., Enjuanes, L., Laude, H., & Herrler, G. (2011). The sialic acid binding activity of the S protein facilitates infection by porcine transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus Virology Journal, 8 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1743-422X-8-435
Desmarets, L., Theuns, S., Roukaerts, I., Acar, D., & Nauwynck, H. (2014). The role of sialic acids in feline enteric coronavirus infections Journal of General Virology DOI: 10.1099/vir.0.064717-0
No comments:
Post a Comment