Why the study?
Coxsackievirus A10 causes an escalating number of severe infections in children, but no prophylactics or therapeutics are currently available.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Comparison
CV-A10 mature virus alone vs in complex with KRM1 vs CV-A10 A-particle
Design
Structural biology study
I need the paper's actual key finding and evidence details before drafting the implication.Should not change HFMD care; leaves open structure-guided vaccines or entry inhibitors for KRM1-using enteroviruses.
Coxsackievirus A10 (CV-A10) is responsible for an escalating number of severe infections in children, but no prophylactics or therapeutics are currently available. KREMEN1 (KRM1) is the entry receptor for the largest receptor-group of hand-foot-and-mouth disease causing viruses, which includes CV-A10. We report here structures of CV-A10 mature virus alone and in complex with KRM1 as well as of the CV-A10 A-particle. The receptor spans the viral canyon with a large footprint on the virus surface. The footprint has some overlap with that seen for the neonatal Fc receptor complexed with enterovirus E6 but is larger and distinct from that of another enterovirus receptor SCARB2. Reduced occupancy of a particle-stabilising pocket factor in the complexed virus and the presence of both unbound and expanded virus particles suggests receptor binding initiates a cascade of conformational changes that produces expanded particles primed for viral uncoating.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: