The two forms of ADAR1 are responsible almost alone for HDV editing, with ADAR1-L induction mediating the increase in editing under IFN-alpha stimulation.
ADAR1-L mediates IFN-alpha effects on editing in animal models; leaves open whether targeting it alters HDV outcomes in patients.
Hepatitis delta virus (HDV) RNA editing controls the formation of hepatitis-delta-antigen-S and -L and therefore indirectly regulates HDV replication. Editing is thought to be catalysed by the adenosine deaminase acting on RNA1 (ADAR1) of which two different forms exist, interferon (IFN)-alpha-inducible ADAR1-L and constitutively expressed ADAR1-S. ADAR1-L is hypothesized to be a part of the innate cellular immune system, responsible for deaminating adenosines in viral dsRNAs. We examined the influence of both forms on HDV RNA editing in IFN-alpha-stimulated and unstimulated hepatoma cells. For gene silencing, an antisense oligodeoxyribonucleotide against a common sequence of both forms of ADAR1 and another one specific for ADAR1-L alone were used. IFN-alpha treatment of host cells led to approximately twofold increase of RNA editing compared with unstimulated controls. If ADAR1-L expression was inhibited, this substantial increase in editing could no longer be observed. In unstimulated cells, ADAR1-L suppression had only minor effects on editing. Inhibition of both forms of ADAR1 simultaneously led to a substantial decrease of edited RNA independently of IFN-alpha-stimulation. In conclusion, the two forms of ADAR1 are responsible almost alone for HDV editing. In unstimulated cells, ADAR1-S is the main editing activity. The increase of edited RNA under IFN-alpha-stimulation is because of induction of ADAR1-L, showing for the first time that this IFN-inducible protein is involved in the base modification of replicating HDV RNA. Thus, induction of ADAR1-L may at least partially cause the antiviral effect of IFN-alpha in natural immune response to HDV as well as in case of therapeutic administration of IFN.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hartwig et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: