Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Enterovirus A71 and coxsackievirus A16 show different replication kinetics in human neuronal and non-neuronal cell lines
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Enterovirus A71 and coxsackievirus A16 show different replication kinetics in human neuronal and non-neuronal cell lines
Do you wish to request the book?
Enterovirus A71 and coxsackievirus A16 show different replication kinetics in human neuronal and non-neuronal cell lines
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Enterovirus A71 and coxsackievirus A16 show different replication kinetics in human neuronal and non-neuronal cell lines
2017
Overview
Enterovirus A71 (EV-A71) and coxsackievirus A16 (CV-A16) are closely related enteroviruses that cause hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) in children. Serious neurological complications almost always occur in EV-A71 infection, but are rare in CV-A16 infection. Based on the hypothesis that this may be because EV-A71 infects neuronal cells more easily than CV-A16, we compared virus infection, replication and spread of EV-A71 and CV-A16 in SK-N-SH cells. We found that CV-A16 invariably showed significantly lower replication and caused less necrotic cell death in SK-N-SH cells, compared with EV-A71. This was not due to a lower proportion of CV-A16-infected cells, since both viruses showed similar proportions of infected cells at all time points analyzed. Furthermore, reduced replication of CV-A16 in SK-N-SH cells does not appear to be due to limited viral receptor availability, which might limit viral entry, because experiments with viral RNA-transfected cells showed the same results as for live virus infections. On the other hand, no differences were observed between EV-A71 and CV-A16 in RD cells and results were generally similar in RD cells for both viruses. Taken together, our findings suggest that the poor growth of CV-A16 and EV-A71in SK-N-SH cells, compared with RD cells, may be due to cell type-specific restrictions on viral replication and spread. Furthermore, the lower viral replication and necrotic cell death in CV-A16-infected SK-N-SH cells, compared with EV-A71-infected SK-N-SH cells, is consistent with the lower prevalence of neurotropism observed in CV-A16-associated HFMD outbreaks. Nonetheless,
in vivo
data and more extensive comparisons of different viral strains are essential to confirm our findings.
Publisher
Springer Vienna,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ children
/ Enterovirus A, Human - chemistry
/ Enterovirus A, Human - classification
/ Enterovirus A, Human - growth & development
/ Enterovirus A, Human - physiology
/ hand, foot and mouth disease
/ Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease - virology
/ Humans
/ Kinetics
/ neurons
/ Virology
/ Viruses
