B cell activation state differentially modulates the ability of murine splenic B cells to support vesicular stomatitis virus versus Newcastle disease virus infections.
Animal data on B-cell activation and viral support remain hypothesis-generating; does not yet inform clinical strategies or human immunology.
It is shown here that the ability of B lymphocytes to act as supportive host cells for virus infections requires they be activated from the resting Gostage of the cell cycle. I have used a series of activation regimens, which allow B cells to progress to different stages in their activation/differentiation pathway toward antibody secretion, in order to evaluate the extent of activation required to support vesicular stomatitis or Newcastle disease virus infections. least three distinct phases during B cell activation which affected VSV infection were defined. Freshly isolated resting murine splenic B cells in the Go phase of the cell cycle do not support VSV, assessed by protein synthesis, infectious center formation, and PFU production. Small B cells cultured for 48 hours without stimulation still do not support VSV. B cells stimulated with the lymphokines found in Con A activated supernatants from splenic T cells or cloned T cell lines transited into the G1 phase of the cell cycle but remain refractory to VSV. These VSV non-supportive B cell populations do take up virus particles and transcribe viral mRNAs which can be translated in vitro, suggesting a translational block to VSV. B cells stimulated into the S phase of the cell cycle with anti-immunoglobulin synthesize VSV proteins and increased numbers of infectious centers, but only low level PFU synthesis (center) is observed. Co-stimulation with anti-Ig and lymphokines, which supports differentiation to antibody secretion, enhanced PFU synthesis without further increasing the number of infected B cells. LPS, which activates B cells directly to antibody secretion by a pathway different from anti-Ig, induced infectious centers, and PFUs at levels comparable to those seen when stably transformed permissive cell lines are infected. Co-stimulation of LPS activated B cells with the same lymphokine populations that enhance PFU production when anti-Ig is used as a stimulator suppresses PFU production completely, suggesting that anti-Ig and LPS activated B cells are differentially responsive to lymphokines. infection of murine B cells differed markedly from VSV infection, as all B cell populations examined gave a similar response pattern. NDV viral proteins were synthesized by B cells in each of the activation states previously described, even freshly isolated B cells. Infectious center formation increased up to 5-fold over the levels observed with unstimulated B cells after anti-Ig or LPS activation. However, PFU synthesis was low (center) for all B cell populations. results suggest that these two similar viruses may be dependent on different host cell factors and that these factors are induced for VSV but not NDV by the B cell activators employed here or that the process of infection of B cell by these two viruses induces different cellular responses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Madelyn R. Schmidt (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: