↓ Skip to main content

Expression of human CD46 and trans-complementation by murine adenovirus 1 fails to allow productive infection by a group B oncolytic adenovirus in murine cancer cells

Overview of attention for article published in Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Expression of human CD46 and trans-complementation by murine adenovirus 1 fails to allow productive infection by a group B oncolytic adenovirus in murine cancer cells
Published in
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40425-018-0350-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet Lei, Egon J. Jacobus, William K. Taverner, Kerry D. Fisher, Silvio Hemmi, Katy West, Lorna Slater, Fred Lilley, Alice Brown, Brian Champion, Margaret R. Duffy, Len W. Seymour

Abstract

Oncolytic viruses are currently experiencing accelerated development in several laboratories worldwide, with some forty-seven clinical trials currently recruiting. Many oncolytic viruses combine targeted cytotoxicity to cancer cells with a proinflammatory cell lysis. Due to their additional potential to express immunomodulatory transgenes, they are also often known as oncolytic viral vaccines. However, several types of oncolytic viruses are human-specific and the lack of suitable immune-competent animal models complicates biologically relevant evaluation of their vaccine potential. This is a particular challenge for group B adenoviruses, which fail to infect even those immunocompetent animal model systems identified as semi-permissive for type 5 adenovirus. Here, we aim to develop a murine cell line capable of supporting replication of a group B oncolytic adenovirus, enadenotucirev (EnAd), for incorporation into a syngeneic immunocompetent animal model to explore the oncolytic vaccine potential of group B oncolytic viruses. Transgenic murine cell lines were infected with EnAd expressing GFP transgene under replication-independent or -dependent promoters. Virus mRNA expression, genome replication, and late protein expression were determined by qRT-PCR, qPCR, and immunoblotting, respectively. We also use Balb/c immune-competent mice to determine the tumourogenicity and infectivity of transgenic murine cell lines. Our results show that a broad range of human carcinoma cells will support EnAd replication, but not murine carcinoma cells. Murine cells can be readily modified to express surface human CD46, one of the receptors for group B adenoviruses, allowing receptor-mediated uptake of EnAd particles into the murine cells and expression of CMV promoter-driven transgenes. Although the early E1A mRNA was expressed in murine cells at levels similar to human cells, adenovirus E2B and Fibre mRNA expression levels were hampered and few virus genomes were produced. Unlike previous reports on group C adenoviruses, trans-complementation of group B adenoviruses by co-infection with mouse adenovirus 1 did not rescue replication. A panel of group B adenoviruses expressing individual mouse adenovirus 1 genes were also unable to rescue EnAd replication. Together, these results indicate that there may be major differences in the early stages of replication of group C and B adenoviruses in murine cells, and that the block to the life cycle of B adenoviruses in murine cells occurs in the early stage of virus replication, perhaps reflecting poor activity of Ad11p E1A in murine cells.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#2,888
of 3,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,464
of 341,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#44
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.