Key result
Co-infection with a defective interfering genome suppressed the concentration of wild-type poliovirus virions at cell lysis by a factor of 5 due to competition for replication resources and capsid proteins.
Why the study?
Interactions between individual variants within RNA virus populations can determine viral fitness and infection outcome.
Defective interfering genomes can significantly inhibit wild-type poliovirus replication by competing for limited intracellular resources during co-infection.
May support defective interfering genomes as antivirals; leaves open translation beyond cell culture to clinical use.
During replication, RNA virus populations accumulate genome alterations, such as mutations and deletions. The interactions between individual variants within the population can determine the fitness of the virus and, thus, the outcome of infection. We developed an ordinary differential equation model to infer the effect of the interaction between defective interfering (DI) replicons and wild-type (WT) poliovirus. We measure production of RNA and viral particles during a single infection cycle, and use these data to infer model parameters. We find that DI replicates faster than WT, but an equilibrium is established when both WT and DI compete for resources needed for RNA replication and genome encapsidation. In the presence of DI, the concentration of WT virions at cell lysis is suppressed by the factor of 5. Multiple generations within a single cell infection provide opportunities for significant inhibition of WT replication by competition with the faster replicating DI genomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shirogane et al. (2019) studied Poliovirus infection. Defective interfering (DI) genome co-infection vs. Wild-type poliovirus single infection was evaluated on Wild-type virus production (virions at cell lysis). Co-infection with a defective interfering genome suppressed the concentration of wild-type poliovirus virions at cell lysis by a factor of 5 due to competition for replication resources and capsid proteins.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: