Key result
Exogenous RAV-0 proviruses integrate at multiple distinct sites in cellular DNA and are expressed at 1,000- to 10,000-fold higher levels than endogenous RAV-0 genomes.
Exogenous RAV-0 proviruses integrate at multiple distinct sites and are expressed at significantly higher levels than endogenous genomes, suggesting regulation by flanking cellular DNA sequences.
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
We investigated the integration sites, infectivities, and expression of Rous-associated virus-0 (Rav-0) DNAs in exogenously infected turkey and chicken cells. Restriction endonuclease analyses of the DNAs of RAV-0-infected cells indicated that unique integration sites of RAV-0 DNA were detectable in clones of RAV-0-infected cells but not in mass-infected cell cultures. In addition, the sites of integration of RAV-0 DNA differed in each of the seven clones of RAV-0-infected cells examined. Thus, endogenous RAV-0 proviruses appeared to integrate at multiple sites in cellular DNA, which were distinct from the sites of integration of endogenous RAV-0 genomes. Since exogenous RAV-0 proviruses are expressed at 10(3)- to 10(4)-fold-higher levels and are 10(3)- to 10(4)-fold more infectious in transfection assays than the endogenous RAV-0 genome of uninfected V+ chicken cells, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that transcription of the endogenous RAV-0 genome is regulated by flanking cellular DNA sequences. Although all RAV-0-infected cells contained infectious RAV-0 DNA and produced high titers of RAV-0 compared with uninfected V+ cells, different clones of RAV-0 infected chicken cells differed by as much as 30-fold in their levels of virus production. The infectivity of the DNA of each clone of RAV-0-infected cells correlated with the amount of virus produced by that clone. However, these differences did not appear to be correlated either with the number of exogenous RAV-0 proviruses in different clones or with the infectivity of RAV-0 produced by different clones, indicating that differences either in modification of RAV-0 DNAs or in the cellular sequences flanking exogenous RAV-0 DNAs were responsible for the observed differences in expression and infectivity.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights potential integration-site regulation of retroviral expression; leaves open relevance to human endogenous retroviruses or vector design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jenkins et al. (1980) studied Rous-associated virus-0 (RAV-0) infection. Exogenous RAV-0 infection vs. Endogenous RAV-0 genome / uninfected cells was evaluated on Integration sites, infectivities, and expression of RAV-0 DNAs. Exogenous RAV-0 proviruses integrate at multiple distinct sites in cellular DNA and are expressed at 1,000- to 10,000-fold higher levels than endogenous RAV-0 genomes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: