Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T19:13:21.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Host cell-mediated selection of influenza A (H3N2) virus variant subpopulations: lack of association between antigenic and receptor-binding properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

R. Pyhälä ,
L. Pyhälä  and
P. Pekkala
R. Pyhälä
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, SF-00280 Helsinki, Finland
L. Pyhälä
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, SF-00280 Helsinki, Finland
P. Pekkala
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, SF-00280 Helsinki, Finland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

During the outbreak of influenza due to A (H3N3) viruses in Finland in 1985/6 virus pairs were isolated from the same clinical specimens in embryonated hens' eggs (CE) and in canine kidney cell cultures (MDCK). Some of these isolates, the E and M pairs, were distinguished by their reactions in haemagglutination inhibition (HI) tests carried out using polyclonal antisera, and by receptorbinding properties, as evidenced by differences in their elution activity from erythrocytes. Passage of the E- and M-virus isolates in the foreign host affected their serological characteristics, but the E virus did not convert to an M-like virus and the M virus did not convert to an E-like virus. Returning the viruses to grow in the host used for their isolation changed the serological reactions so that they were once more close to the reactions of the original isolates. This contrasts with the changes in receptor-binding properties. Rapid elution from hen erythrocytes, which has been described as a property of viruses binding to the SAα2,3Gal sequence in preference to SAα2,6Gal, characterized the virus passages grown solely in MDCK cell cultures. Cultivation of the M virus in CE, at any stage of its passage history, made the virus irreversibly incapable of elution. The M virus was more sensitive than the E virus to HI antibodies against heterologous viruses of the H3N2 subtype, and, when used as an antigen in HI serology, it more frequently (90% vs. 69%; P < 0·01) detected diagnostic antibody responses in patients infected with viruses of this subtype in 1985/6. Use of antigens with a different passage history in HI serology provided evidence that this superiority, which may be due to the ability of the virus to pick out anamnestic antibody responses, is unrelated to the receptor-binding peculiarity of the M virus under consideration. The results support the concept that the host cell can select a diversity of virus variant subpopulations from a single clinical specimen during isolation and subsequent cultivation procedures. Moreover, the MDCK-grown influenza viruses may correspond better than the egg-grown isolates to the natural epidemic viruses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 100 , Issue 3 , June 1988 , pp. 511 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

Beyer, W. E. P. & Masurel, N. (1985). Antigenic heterogeneity among influenza A (H3N2) field isolates during an outbreak in 1982/3, estimated by methods of numerical taxonomy. Epidemiology and Infection 94, 97–109.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. M., Higa, H. H. & Paulson, J. C. (1981). Different cell-surface receptor determinants of antigenically similar influenza virus hemagglutinins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 256, 8357–8363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, R. S., Jeffries, S., Yates, P., Schild, G. C., Rogers, G. N., Paulson, J. C., Wharton, S. A., Douglas, A. R., Skehel, J. J. & Wiley, D. C. (1987). The receptor-binding and membrane-fusion properties of influenza virus variants selected using anti-haemagglutinin monoclonal antibodies. EMBO Journal 6, 1459–1465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deom, C. M., Caton, A. J. & Schulze, I. T. (1986). Host cell-mediated selection of a mutant influenza A virus that has lost a complex oligosaccharide from the tip of the hemagglutinin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 83, 3771–3775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, J. M., Naeve, C. W. & Webster, R. G. (1987). Host cell-mediated variation in H3X2 influenza viruses. Virology 156, 386–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lathey, J. L., Van Voris, L. P. & Belshe, R. B. (1986). Superiority of tissue-culture-grown antigens over egg-grown antigens for serologic diagnosis of influenza B virus infections. Journal of Medical Virology 19, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oxford, J. S. (1987) What is the true nature of epidemic influenza virus and how do new epidemic viruses spread ? Epidemiology arid Infection 99, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oxford, J. S., Corcoran, T., Knott, R., Bates, J., Bartolomei, O., Major, D., Newman, R. W., Yates, P., Robertson, J., Webster, R. G. & Schild, G. C. (1987). Serological studies with influenza A (H1N1) viruses cultivated in eggs or in a canine kidney cell line (MDCK). Bulletin of the World Health Organization 65, 181–187.Google ScholarPubMed
Patterson, S. & Oxford, J. S. (1986). Analysis of antigenic determinants on internal and external proteins of influenza virus and identification of antigenic subpopulations of virions in recent field isolates using monoclonal antibodies and immunogold labelling. Archives of Virology 88, 180–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PyhÄlÄ, R. & Pyhälä, L. (1987). Antigenic analysis of intraepidemic variants of influenza A(H3N2) viruses by hyperimmune rat antisera. Journal of Virological Methods 15, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PyhÄlÄ, R., PyhÄlÄ, L., Valle, M. & Aho, K. (1987). Egg-grown and tissue-culture-grown variants of influenza A (H3N2) virus with special attention to their use as antigens in seroepidemiology. Epidemiology and Infection. In press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PyhÄlÄ, R., PyhÄlÄ, L. & Visakorpi, R. (1986). Intraepidemic heterogeneity of influenza A (H3N2) viruses in 1985; antigenic analysis and sensitivity to non-specific inhibitors. Medical Biology 64, 277–284.Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, J. S., Bootman, J. S., Newman, R., Oxford, J. S., Daniels, R. S., Webster, R. G. & Schild, G. C. (1987). Structural changes in haemagglutinin which accompany egg adaptation of an influenza A (H1N1) virus. Virology 160, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, J. S., Naeve, C. W., Webster, R. G., Bootman, J. S., Newman, R. & Schild, G. C. (1985). Alterations in the hemagglutinin associated with adaptation of influenza B virus to growth in eggs. Virology 143, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, G. N., Daniels, R. S., Skehel, J., Wiley, D. C., Wang, X., Higa, H. H. & Paulson, J. C. (1985). Host-mediated selection of influenza receptor variants. Journal of Biological Chemistry 260, 7362–7367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, G. N. & Paulson, J. C. (1983). Receptor determinants of human and animal influenza virus isolates: differences in receptor specificity of the H3 hemagglutinin based on species of origin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rott, R., Orlich, M., Klenk, H. -D., Wang, M. L., Skehel, J. J. & Wiley, D. C. (1984). Studies on the adaptation of influenza viruses to MDCK cells. EMBO Journal 3, 3329–3332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schild, G. C., Oxford, J. S., De Jong, J. C. & Webster, R. G. (1983). Evidence for host-cell selection of influenza virus antigenic variants. Nature 303, 706–709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Underwood, P. A., Skehel, J. J. & Wiley, D. C. (1987) Receptor-binding characteristics of monoclonal antibody-selected antigenic variants of influenza virus. Journal of Virology 61, 206–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed