Key result
The monoclonal antibody JL2 binds to the apical region of human SCARB2 (involving α-helices 2, 5, and 14) and effectively inhibits EV71 infection in vitro.
Why the study?
Does the monoclonal antibody JL2 against human SCARB2 prevent EV71 infection in vitro?
Does the monoclonal antibody JL2 against human SCARB2 prevent EV71 infection in vitro?
The monoclonal antibody JL2 effectively blocks EV71 infection by binding to the apical region of the human SCARB2 receptor, providing insights into the molecular mechanism of viral entry.
JL2 may map the EV71-SCARB2 binding site; leaves open therapeutic translation for HFMD.
Entero virus 71 (EV71) causes hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) and occasionally leads to severe neurological complications and even death. Scavenger receptor class B member 2 (SCARB2) is a functional receptor for EV71, that mediates viral attachment, internalization, and uncoating. However, the exact binding site of EV71 on SCARB2 is unknown. In this study, we generated a monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to human but not mouse SCARB2. It is named JL2, and it can effectively inhibit EV71 infection of target cells. Using a set of chimeras of human and mouse SCARB2, we identified that the region containing residues 77-113 of human SCARB2 contributes significantly to JL2 binding. The structure of the SCARB2-JL2 complex revealed that JL2 binds to the apical region of SCARB2 involving α-helices 2, 5, and 14. Our results provide new insights into the potential binding sites for EV71 on SCARB2 and the molecular mechanism of EV71 entry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2017) studied Enterovirus 71 (EV71) infection. JL2 monoclonal antibody vs. Isotype control antibody was evaluated on Inhibition of EV71 infection in vitro and structural characterization of SCARB2-JL2 complex. The monoclonal antibody JL2 binds to the apical region of human SCARB2 (involving α-helices 2, 5, and 14) and effectively inhibits EV71 infection in vitro.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: