• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
virology blog

virology blog

About viruses and viral disease

rsv

When Two Different Viruses Have Offspring

5 January 2023 by Gertrud U. Rey 6 Comments

by Gertrud U. Rey

This image is for illustrative purposes only and does not reflect the exact geographical locations of the IAV and RSV genomes and glycoproteins in the HVPs.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you were infected with two different viruses at the same time? A recent study aimed at addressing this question has produced some astounding new findings.

The authors of the study wanted to observe the interactions between respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A virus (IAV), so they infected lung cells with either virus or a mixture of both viruses. An initial experiment comparing the replication kinetics of each virus in co-infected cells to those infected with either virus showed that co-infection had no impact on the replication of IAV, but did lead to reduced replication of RSV.  

IAV and RSV each localize to distinct cellular regions during their individual courses of infection – RSV aggregates in cytoplasmic complexes known as inclusion bodies, and IAV scatters more diffusely throughout the cytoplasm. Analysis of infected cells by fluorescence microscopy using antibodies against both the RSV and IAV nucleoproteins revealed that co-infection did not alter this localization – RSV was still in inclusion bodies and IAV was diffuse. The authors then analyzed later stages of infection, when in single infections, these viruses assemble in structures called lipid rafts in the plasma membrane. Their results using antibodies against the IAV hemagglutinin (HA) protein or the RSV F protein (i.e., the viral surface glycoproteins) revealed that in co-infections, both viruses were also simultaneously in the same region around the plasma membrane, suggesting that viral particles budding from the cell surface could contain components of both RSV and IAV.  

Using high resolution confocal microscopy and a technique known as cryo-electron tomography, which reconstructs a series of image slices to generate a three-dimensional structure of a sample, the authors found that co-infection of cells produced two types of particles. The first type, called ‘pseudotyped viruses,’ consisted of RSV particles with IAV glycoproteins. The second type, designated ‘hybrid virus particles’ (HVPs), were true hybrids containing the genomes and surface glycoproteins of both viruses with distinct structural regions characteristic of each virus. Because glycoproteins determine which cells and cell surface proteins viruses can bind to (i.e., their “antigenicity”), it is reasonable to assume that HVPs would have a modified antigenicity relative to IAV and RSV. IAV entry into cells occurs via the viral HA protein, which binds the cell surface protein sialic acid. RSV entry is effected in part via its F protein, which mediates fusion of the virus with the host cell membrane. To determine whether the HA and F glycoproteins on the HVPs were altered in terms of their antigenicity, the authors carried out a neutralization assay, which reveals whether an antibody can bind a glycoprotein and inactivate the viral particle. Anti-HA antibodies neutralized HVPs about three-fold less efficiently than viruses collected from cells that had only been infected with IAV, suggesting that the HA on HVPs is different enough so that antibodies won’t recognize it. In contrast, anti-F antibodies neutralized HVPs about as well as they did viruses isolated from cells infected with RSV only, suggesting that the antigenicity of the F glycoprotein on HVPs was well preserved. These results also suggested that HVPs cannot enter host cells using the IAV HA protein, and likely enters via the RSV F protein instead.    

To test this hypothesis, the authors treated cells with neuraminidase, which binds sialic acid and sequesters it, thus leaving no receptor for IAV to bind to and enter the cell. Viruses isolated from singly or co-infected cells were then used to infect these neuraminidase-treated cells, and the cells were stained with IAV and RSV nucleoprotein-specific fluorescent antibodies and visualized by fluorescence microscopy to determine whether IAV, RSV, or HVPs had infected them. As expected, neuraminidase-treated cells infected with viruses isolated from RSV only- or IAV only-infected cells contained RSV nucleoprotein but not IAV nucleoprotein, suggesting that IAV was unable to infect these cells (because there was no sialic acid to bind to), while RSV infected these cells normally because RSV entry is not dependent on sialic acid. Interestingly, neuraminidase-treated cells infected with viruses isolated from co-infected cells contained an abundance of IAV nucleoproteins, further implying that HVPs containing IAV genomes entered these cells using RSV F protein.

To confirm that the RSV F protein mediated HVP entry into cells, viruses isolated from co-infected cells were treated with a monoclonal antibody against RSV F protein before they were used to infect neuraminidase-treated cells. The monoclonal antibody would presumably sequester any viruses having the F protein and prevent any F protein-mediated entry into cells. This treatment led to significantly reduced entry of HVPs into cells, confirming that the RSV F protein mediates entry of hybrid particles into cells.

Studies of virus-host interactions are extremely common, and scientists have made a lot of progress in understanding the mechanisms that drive these interactions. In stark contrast, we know very little about how viruses interact with each other. Some work has shown that not all co-infections are successful and often result in “competitive exclusion,” with one virus displacing the other, thereby preventing it from completing a replication cycle or establishing an infection in the first place. To my knowledge, this is the first study showing that two completely different viruses can coordinate their replication cycles to develop some kind of symbiosis in a clear display of co-evolution. And although this phenomenon may seem extraordinary, it is probably more common than we think.  

[For a more detailed discussion of this study, please check out TWiV 958.]

Filed Under: Basic virology, Gertrud Rey Tagged With: antigenicity, co-infection, HA, hemagglutinin, hybrid virus, hybrid virus particle, IAV, influenza A, neuraminidase, rsv, RSV F protein, sialic acid, virus-virus interaction

RNA, in a Nutshell

7 January 2021 by Gertrud U. Rey

by Gertrud U. Rey

It is now a little more than a year since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, and we already have several highly effective vaccines against this virus. Because of my previous research experience in vaccine science, I was very skeptical about the promise of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine this soon. I was wrong, and I could not be happier about that.

Two of the leading vaccines were developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna and consist of a messenger RNA (mRNA) that encodes the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Upon injection into a vaccine recipient, the mRNA would enter cells and be translated by the host protein synthesis machinery into the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which would then serve as an antigen to promote an immune response. mRNA vaccines are non-infectious and do not integrate into the genome, meaning that there is no risk of infection or mutations caused by inserted vaccine sequences. Although these vaccines are the first of their kind to be licensed for widespread use, the concept is not new. Reports of the first successful translation of a foreign mRNA in animals were published in 1990, and this technology has been refined ever since. Progress in the field has been hampered by concerns that the inherent instability of RNA would prevent its use for delivery as a therapeutic or vaccine. However, research has shown that the stability of RNA can be increased through various modifications and delivery methods.

One way a vaccine mRNA molecule can be modified is by placing it between two RNA sequences that don’t code for protein, i.e., untranslated regions (UTRs; see graphic), which stabilize the mRNA and optimize it for translation. The ends of the mRNA – also known as the 5′ and 3′ ends, respectively – can be further modified by addition of a “cap” and a “poly(A) tail.” The cap consists of a modified guanosine nucleotide followed by three phosphates (“G-PPP” in the graphic) and serves as a recognition signal for the cellular ribosome to bind and translate the mRNA. The poly(A) tail is a string of adenosine nucleotides (“AAA” in the graphic), which further stabilize the mRNA.

A common method for encapsulating and delivering the mRNA into cells is to encase it in a cocoon of phospholipids. For example, the mRNA molecule in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is encapsulated in a lipid nanoparticle (pictured), which protects the mRNA from degradation and ensures proper delivery into cells. Addition of cholesterol molecules makes the nanoparticle more fluid and is thought to increase its ability to fuse with our cell’s membranes to deliver the mRNA into our cells. Addition of polyethylene glycol (PEG) increases the potency of the vaccine particle by hiding it from the host immune system, making it more water soluble, and slowing its degradation.

One of the reasons why SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines could be produced so quickly is because all this basic science was already in place at the start of the pandemic. And although the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are the first mRNA vaccines to be authorized by the FDA for emergency use, several mRNA vaccines have undergone clinical trials in humans before, for at least four infectious diseases: rabies, influenza, cytomegalovirus infection, and Zika virus infection.

Another factor that helped speed up the process of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine production is that, luckily, scientists were able to extrapolate the insight gained from the study of other coronaviruses to SARS-CoV-2. Like the spike protein of other coronaviruses, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is highly immunogenic and is targeted by neutralizing antibodies, which bind viral antigens to inactivate the virus and prevent infection of new cells. The spike protein also mediates binding of the virus to the ACE2 host cell receptor via spike’s receptor-binding domain and fusion of the viral particle with the host cell membrane via spike’s fusion domain. However, to mediate this fusion, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein undergoes a structural rearrangement from its pre-fusion conformation. By 2017, scientists at the Vaccine Research Center of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases had already determined that the pre-fusion form of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is more immunogenic than its post-fusion form. Accordingly, they had spent several years engineering a mutation that locks the translated spike protein into its pre-fusion structure. When the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence was published one year ago, scientists were able to compare it to the MERS-CoV sequence and identify the exact location where the pre-fusion stabilizing mutation had to be made. And luckily, making the mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA sequence stabilized the spike protein in its pre-fusion conformation. 

Conventional vaccine strategies have repeatedly failed to yield vaccines against challenging viruses like HIV-1, herpes simplex virus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), while recent advances in mRNA vaccine technology show promise in immunizing against some of these viruses. For example, RSV poses a substantial public health threat due to its association with severe morbidity and mortality in infants and premature babies. Despite 60 years of continual efforts, we still don’t have a licensed RSV vaccine, in part because natural RSV infection does not induce a durable immune response. We do know that the RSV F (fusion) protein is highly conserved and elicits broadly neutralizing antibodies, and recent studies have shown that similar to the case of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, most neutralizing activity in human serum is directed against the pre-fusion form of the RSV F protein. This observation inspired scientists at Moderna to develop an RSV pre-fusion F protein mRNA vaccine, with Phase I clinical trial data showing promising results.

One of the exciting features of the mRNA vaccine platform is that it is not only applicable to preventing viral diseases but can also be used for treating cancer. Cancer mRNA vaccines would target tumor-associated antigens that are preferentially expressed in cancer cells.

Vaccination remains one of the most effective public health measures for preventing and controlling infectious diseases. However, conventional vaccine approaches using live-attenuated and inactivated virus vaccines are time-consuming and expensive. mRNA vaccines can be produced more quickly and cost-effectively than conventional vaccines because they obviate the need for growing and/or repeatedly passaging viruses in cell culture. Nonetheless, we would not know any of this without decades of prior studies, which further highlights the importance of regularly funding basic research.

Filed Under: Basic virology, Gertrud Rey Tagged With: cancer mRNA vaccines, cholesterol, encapsulated, lipid nanoparticle, mRNA vaccine, PEG, polyethylene glycol, pre-fusion spike protein, rsv, SARS-CoV-2, spike protein

Maternal Immunization for RSV

19 July 2018 by Gertrud U. Rey

pregnant-needleBy Gertrud U. Rey

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of respiratory illness, including bronchiolitis and pneumonia, in the young, elderly, and immunocompromised. RSV poses a substantial public health threat due to its association with severe morbidity and mortality in infants and premature babies.

[Read more…] about Maternal Immunization for RSV

Filed Under: Basic virology, Gertrud Rey, Information Tagged With: F protein, maternal immunization, respiratory syncytial virus, rsv, vaccine, viral, virology, virus, viruses

Robert M. Chanock, MD, 1924-2010

2 August 2010 by Vincent Racaniello

From the Washington Post:

Dr. ROBERT M. CHANOCK (Age 86) On July 30, 2010 of Bethesda, MD. He was a resident in the Washington area for over 50 years, a distinguished scientist at the National Institute of Health. He received many awards and was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He received his undergrad and medical degrees at the University of Chicago where he also received an honorary doctorate degree.

Chanock received his MD in 1947 from the University of Chicago, and after clinical training in pediatrics (note the bowtie), joined Albert Sabin at the University of Cincinnati where he studied arthropod-borne viruses. After a stint in the US Army, he rejoined Sabin’s laboratory in 1954 as an independent investigator. Sabin advised him to work on something other than poliomyelitis, to establish his own scientific identity. He decided to study an ongoing outbreak of croup in Cincinnati children and isolated a new virus, subsequently called human parainfluenza virus type 2. This discovery ensured that he would study respiratory viruses for the rest of his career.

His move to the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health in 1957 was the last of his career but lead to his most productive years. Together with Robert Huebner he developed an effective adenovirus vaccine which was used by the military. He discovered four additional human parainfluenza viruses, but his most important finding was the isolation of respiratory syncytial virus, the most common viral cause of serious lower respiratory tract disease in infants and young children. Under his leadership, the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases began to study other important human viruses, including gastroenteritis viruses (e.g. Norwalk virus) and hepatitis viruses.

I was fortunate to interact with Dr. Chanock early in my career, at scientific meetings and during visits to the NIH. My main recollection was that he was always enthusiastic and supportive. His first question upon seeing me was always ‘how’s the work with polio?’ Since his early years with Albert Sabin he had always followed basic research on poliovirus with great interest. Sabin had a significant positive influence on Chanock’s career and his view of viruses – in fact, Sabin considered Chanock his ‘scientific son’. It is therefore fitting that the last award bestowed upon Chanock was the Albert B. Sabin Gold Medal in 1995, for his work in the field of vaccinology, particularly the control of respiratory diseases.

Update: Washington Post story

LIGON, B. (1998). Robert M. Chanock, MD: A living legend in the war against viruses Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases, 9 (3), 258-269 DOI: 10.1016/S1045-1870(98)80040-X

Filed Under: Events Tagged With: chanock, obituary, parainfluenza, rsv, viral, virology, virus

Primary Sidebar

by Vincent Racaniello

Earth’s virology Professor
Questions? virology@virology.ws

With David Tuller and
Gertrud U. Rey

Follow

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
Get updates by RSS or Email

Contents

Table of Contents
ME/CFS
Inside a BSL-4
The Wall of Polio
Microbe Art
Interviews With Virologists

Earth’s Virology Course

Virology Live
Columbia U
Virologia en Español
Virology 101
Influenza 101

Podcasts

This Week in Virology
This Week in Microbiology
This Week in Parasitism
This Week in Evolution
Immune
This Week in Neuroscience
All at MicrobeTV

Useful Resources

Lecturio Online Courses
HealthMap
Polio eradication
Promed-Mail
Small Things Considered
ViralZone
Virus Particle Explorer
The Living River
Parasites Without Borders

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.