![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Copyright © American Society for Investigative Pathology Human and Avian Influenza Viruses Target Different Cells in the Lower Respiratory Tract of Humans and Other Mammals From the Department of Virology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Accepted June 19, 2007. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Viral attachment to the host cell is critical for tissue and species specificity of virus infections. Recently, pattern of viral attachment (PVA) in human respiratory tract was determined for highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of subtype H5N1. However, PVA of human influenza viruses and other avian influenza viruses in either humans or experimental animals is unknown. Therefore, we compared PVA of two human influenza viruses (H1N1 and H3N2) and two low pathogenic avian influenza viruses (H5N9 and H6N1) with that of H5N1 virus in respiratory tract tissues of humans, mice, ferrets, cynomolgus macaques, cats, and pigs by virus histochemistry. We found that human influenza viruses attached more strongly to human trachea and bronchi than H5N1 virus and attached to different cell types than H5N1 virus. These differences correspond to primary diagnoses of tracheobronchitis for human influenza viruses and diffuse alveolar damage for H5N1 virus. The PVA of low pathogenic avian influenza viruses in human respiratory tract resembled that of H5N1 virus, demonstrating that other properties determine its pathogenicity for humans. The PVA in human respiratory tract most closely mirrored that in ferrets and pigs for human influenza viruses and that in ferrets, pigs, and cats for avian influenza viruses. Infections with human influenza A viruses of the subtypes H1N1 and H3N2 are important causes of respiratory tract disease. The most common lesion in immunocompetent individuals is tracheobronchitis.1 Uncommonly, human influenza A virus infection causes severe pneumonia, which requires hospitalization and may be fatal. This pattern of disease contrasts with the ongoing outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus infection of the subtype H5N1. In this outbreak, severe pneumonia is the most common lesion in the >300 patients with confirmed H5N1 virus infection, and the case fatality rate is over 50% (World Health Organization http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/cases_table_2007_06_04/en/index.html). Until now, there is no evidence that this avian virus has become efficiently transmissible among humans, which could result in a new pandemic.2 The increased interest in H5N1 virus infection has highlighted large gaps in our knowledge of the pathogenesis of influenza A virus infections in humans. An important factor in this pathogenesis is tissue tropism, which depends largely on the ability of the virus to attach to the host cell.3 Influenza A viruses attach to host cells by binding of the hemagglutinin (HA) protein to sialosaccharides on the host cell surface. The HAs of influenza A viruses from different host species differ in their specificity of binding. For example, HAs of human influenza A viruses preferentially recognize sialic acid (SA)-α-2,6-Gal-terminated saccharides (α-2,6-SA), whereas HAs of avian influenza viruses preferentially recognize SA-α-2,3-Gal-terminated saccharides (α-2,3-SA).4,5,6 These differences generally correspond with the variation in the type of SAs expressed at important sites for influenza A virus replication in the respective host species. For example, human tracheal epithelium expresses mainly α-2,6-SA,7 whereas duck intestinal epithelium expresses mainly α-2,3-SA.8 Therefore, the type and distribution of SA is considered to be an important factor in the susceptibility of different host species to influenza A viruses.9 The SA recognized by influenza A virus is not only important in the host species range but also in its transmissibility. The latter was demonstrated in experimental infections of ferrets with the 1918 pandemic influenza virus. In this study, horizontal transmission was abolished by two amino acid mutations in the HA that caused a switch in binding preference from human α-2,6-SA to avian α-2,3-SA.10 A traditional method for studying the tissue tropism of different influenza A viruses is to measure the distribution of SAs by use of lectin histochemistry. Lectin histochemistry makes use of the property of a wide variety of lectins to specifically bind to SAs.11 Studies on receptors for influenza virus have made use of the plant lectins Sambucus nigra agglutinin, which has a major specificity for α-2,6-SA, and Maackia amurensis agglutinin, which has a major specificity for α-2,3-SA.12,13 Although useful for determining the distribution of SAs in tissues, these lectin histochemistry techniques are only an indirect measure of influenza A virus attachment to host tissues. They do not account for other variables that influence the binding specificity. For HA, these include glycosylation and sialylation close to the receptor binding site5; for the receptor, these include type of SA, alternative linkages,14 and sulfation and fucosylation of the saccharide residues.15 To circumvent these problems, we made use of virus histochemistry to study the pattern of virus attachment (PVA) in respiratory tissues. This method, modified from Couceiro et al,7 directly displays the attachment of influenza virus to tissues. By use of this method, we recently determined that H5N1 virus attachment in the human respiratory tract is progressively more abundant toward the alveoli, where the virus attaches predominantly to type II pneumocytes and alveolar macrophages.16 This attachment pattern fits with the limited pathology data on H5N1 virus infection in humans, which show diffuse alveolar damage as the primary lesion.17,18,19 Our results on H5N1 virus were supported by recent experimental studies in human ex vivo lung cultures, which demonstrated H5N1 virus replication in the lower respiratory tract (LRT).13,20 Although limited studies have been done on the human trachea,7 the PVA for human influenza A viruses in the LRT is not known. This information is important to understand better the pathogenesis of influenza pneumonia, which is centered on the LRT. In addition, it is not clear whether the PVA of H5N1 virus that we observed is unique among avian influenza viruses and therefore may in part explain its ability to cause respiratory disease in humans. Finally, the PVA of human influenza A virus in experimental animals is not known. This information is important to help select the most appropriate animal model for influenza pneumonia. Of particular interest is the domestic pig, which is permissive for both human and avian influenza A virus infections and may thus act as a “mixing vessel” for the generation of reassortant viruses.21 Therefore, we here describe the PVA of two currently circulating subtypes of human influenza A virus (H3N2 and H1N1) and low pathogenic avian influenza viruses (H5N9 and H6N1) to compare these with the PVA of highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus H5N1 in human respiratory tract. Furthermore, we determined the PVA of these human and avian influenza A viruses in respiratory tract of known experimental animals. Materials and Methods Experimental Design To determine the PVA of human and avian influenza A viruses in the trachea and LRT of humans, we used two low pathogenic avian influenza viruses (H5N9 and H6N1), a highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus H5N1 isolate, and two recently circulating human influenza viruses (H3N2 and H1N1). We determined whether attachment occurred to epithelial cells in the trachea or LRT (including bronchi, bronchioles, and alveoli) and to alveolar macrophages. The PVA of all of the above viruses was also determined in mammalian species, which are used for experimental influenza A virus infections. Animals included were cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis), European shorthair cat, ferret, Yorkshire-Landrace pig, and C57/BL6 mouse. Viruses Influenza virus A/Netherlands/35/05 (H1N1) and A/Netherlands/213/03 (H3N2) are recent human isolates grown on Madin-Darby canine kidney cells and were kindly provided by the National Influenza Center (Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Influenza virus A/Mallard/Sweden/79/02 (H5N9) and A/Mallard/Sweden/81/02 (H6N1) were obtained from cloacal swabs of migratory mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) during ongoing influenza virus surveillance of wild birds and were subsequently passaged twice in embryonated hens’ eggs.22 Influenza virus A/Vietnam/1194/04 (H5N1) was isolated from a fatal human case. The virus was kindly provided by Dr. W. Lim (Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China), and propagated once in Madin-Darby canine kidney cells. Virus Preparation, Inactivation, and Labeling The H1N1, H3N2, and H5N1 viruses, isolated from humans, were grown in Madin-Darby canine kidney cells. The supernatant was harvested and cleared by low-speed centrifugation. The H5N9 and H6N1 viruses, isolated from mallards, were grown in the allantoic cavity of 11-day-old embryonated hens’ eggs. The allantoic fluid was harvested after 2 days and cleared by low-speed centrifugation. Cleared supernatants and allantoic fluid samples were subsequently centrifuged 2 hours at 85,000 × g in a SW28 rotor at 4°C. The virus pellet was resuspended in 2 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), loaded on a 20 to 60% sucrose (w/w) gradient, and centrifuged overnight at 300,000 × g in a SW41 rotor at 4°C. To deplete the sucrose, the viruses were additionally centrifuged 2 hours at 85,000 × g in a SW28 rotor at 4°C, and the virus was resuspended in PBS. H5N1 virus was inactivated by dialyzing against 0.1% formalin for 3 days. All other viruses were inactivated by incubation with 1:1 (v/v) 10% formalin for 1 hour at room temperature. After inactivation, virus suspensions were dialyzed against PBS. Inactivation was confirmed by failure to passage on Madin-Darby canine kidney cells. Viruses were labeled by mixing concentrated, inactivated viruses, suspended in PBS, with an equal volume of 0.1 mg/ml fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) in 0.5 mol/L bicarbonate buffer (pH 9.5) for 1 hour with constant stirring. To lose all unbound FITC, labeled viruses were dialyzed against PBS. To check for the continued capacity for hemagglutination by the inactivated viruses, the hemagglutination titer of the viruses was determined after formalin inactivation and FITC labeling.23 Respiratory Tract Tissues from Humans and Animals Archival paraffin-embedded human tissue sections were obtained from the Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC. Archival paraffin-embedded animal tissue sections were obtained from the Department of Virology, Erasmus MC, or from the Department of Pathobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Utrecht (Utrecht, The Netherlands). All tissues selected were from individuals without histological lesions or evidence of respiratory tract infection at the time of death. Three individuals per species were analyzed. Virus Histochemistry on Tissue Sections Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues were deparaffinized with xylene and hydrated using graded alcohols. FITC-labeled influenza viruses were incubated overnight at 4°C at a titer of 50 to 100 hemagglutinating units/50 μl. For the visualization by light miscroscopy, FITC label was detected with a peroxidase-labeled rabbit-anti-FITC (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark). The signal was amplified with a tyramide signal amplification system (Perkin Elmer, Boston, MA) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Peroxidase was revealed with 3-amino-9-ethyl-carbazole (Sigma), resulting in a bright red precipitate. Tissues were counterstained with hematoxylin and embedded in glycerol-gelatin (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). Attachment of influenza virus to tissues was visible as granular to diffuse red staining on the apical surface of epithelial cells. Cytoplasmic staining in epithelial cells and staining of other cell types was seen occasionally. For each tissue tested, in each run, an omission control was included to check for nonspecific amplification. To validate the method, we incubated labeled H5N1 virus and H3N2 virus with human trachea and mallard duck intestine. The pattern of attachment of both viruses to these tissues was as expected. H5N1 virus, which has retained a preference for α-2,3-SA,15 bound abundantly to duck intestinal epithelium, which expresses mainly α-2,3-SA,8 and bound rarely to human tracheal epithelium, which expresses mainly α-2,6-SA.7 In contrast, H3N2 virus, which has a preference for α-2,6-SA, bound abundantly to human tracheal epithelium and bound poorly to duck intestinal epithelium. Double Staining for H5N1 Virus Attachment and Type II Pneumocytes H5N1 virus attachment in human lung was detected as described above, but peroxidase was not yet revealed. Type II pneumocytes were detected by incubation with a monoclonal mouse anti-human surfactant apoprotein A (PSP-A) antibody (Dako) for 1 hour at room temperature, followed by incubation with an alkaline phosphatase-labeled goat anti-mouse IgG2b (Southern Biotechnology Associates, Inc., Birmingham, AL) for 1 hour at room temperature. Peroxidase was revealed as described above, and alkaline phosphatase was revealed with 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl phosphate/nitro blue tetrazolium substrate system (Dako), resulting in a dark blue precipitate. Sections were not counterstained. Omission of H5N1 virus or an IgG2b isotype control (instead of mouse anti-human PSP-A) was included as a negative control in each run. Results Attachment of Human Influenza A Viruses to Human Respiratory Tract The human influenza A viruses H3N2 and H1N1 had a similar PVA to the human respiratory tract (Table 1; Figure 1
Attachment of Avian Influenza Viruses to Human Respiratory Tract The avian influenza viruses H5N9 and H6N1 showed a similar PVA to tissues of the human respiratory tract that also resembled the PVA of H5N1 virus (Table 1; Figure 1
Attachment of Human Influenza A Viruses to Experimental Animal Respiratory Tract The PVA of human influenza A viruses to respiratory tract tissues of some experimental animal species resembled that of humans more than others (Table 1; Figures 2, 4, and 5
Attachment of Avian Influenza Viruses to Experimental Animal Respiratory Tract The PVA of H5N9 and H6N1 viruses to respiratory tract tissues resembled that of H5N1 virus in each of the five animal species (Table 1). As for human influenza A viruses, the PVA of avian influenza viruses to respiratory tract tissues of some animal species resembled that of humans more than others. The PVA of cats, ferrets, and pigs (Figure 5) Discussion This study shows for the first time the PVA of human influenza A viruses in the human respiratory tract, from the trachea down to the alveoli. This information is important to understand better the pathogenesis of influenza pneumonia. The PVA of these viruses differs markedly from that of an H5N1 strain.16 These differences may explain, at least in part, the contrasts in localization and severity of respiratory disease between these virus infections in humans. The common presentation of human influenza A virus infection is tracheobronchitis, which fits with the abundant attachment of these viruses to tracheal and bronchial epithelium (Table 1; Figure 1 The two low pathogenic avian influenza viruses, H5N9 and H6N1, had a similar PVA to human respiratory tract to that of H5N1 virus (Table 1; Figure 1 The respiratory tract of ferrets and pigs most closely resembled that of humans with regard to PVA of human influenza A viruses (Table 1; Figures 4 and 5 The respiratory tract of cats, ferrets, and pigs most closely resembled that of humans with regards to PVA of avian influenza viruses (Table 1). For cats and ferrets, the PVA of H5N1 virus to respiratory tract tissues has been reported previously.16 However, a species not reported on previously is the pig. Although α-2,3-SA (the preferred receptors of avian influenza viruses) and α-2,6-SA (the preferred receptors of human influenza A viruses) have been detected in pig trachea by lectin histochemistry,8 only human influenza A viruses attached to pig trachea in our study (Figure 5 The PVA of avian influenza viruses, including H5N1 virus, in experimental animals corresponds overall to the localization of respiratory tract disease reported for experimental H5N1 virus infection in these species. In cats,45 ferrets,47 macaques,48 and pigs,49 the lesions are most severe in alveoli and bronchioles, whereas bronchi and trachea are less or not affected. This fits with the PVA of H5N1 virus in these species, which is predominantly in alveoli and bronchioles (Table 1). In contrast, mice infected with H5N1 virus show substantial necrotizing lesions in trachea and bronchi in addition to alveolar and bronchiolar involvement.50,51 This corresponds to the moderate to abundant attachment of H5N1 virus to mouse trachea and bronchus (Table 1). Tracheobronchial submucosal glands play two potentially opposite roles in influenza virus infection. On the one hand, they produce mucus that can inactivate virus and thus inhibit viral infection. On the other hand, the glands themselves may become infected with influenza virus, thus enhancing viral infection. In humans, tracheal submucosal glands produce a different sialosaccharide (α-2,3-SA) from that predominantly expressed by tracheal epithelial cells (α-2,6-SA).52 This fits with our attachment study, where avian influenza viruses bound to human submucosal gland cells and their mucus, but human influenza viruses did not (Figure 2) Together, the results of this virus attachment study improve our understanding of the pathogenesis of human respiratory tract disease from both human and avian influenza A virus infection. This information on virus attachment needs to be combined with studies on other factors that may contribute to pathogenicity of influenza A virus infection, such as replication rate,32,55 escape mechanisms from innate immune response,56 and induction of cytokine production.32 Virus attachment studies also may help in the choice of animal model to study disease mechanisms and to test preventive and therapeutic strategies against both human and avian influenza. The viral histochemistry technique used here for influenza A virus also may be useful in the research of other viral diseases. Acknowledgments We thank W. Lim for providing the H5N1 virus isolate; F. van der Panne for technical assistance; and M. den Bakker, H. Sharma, M. Vermeij, and J. van den Brand for providing tissues. Footnotes Address reprint requests to Thijs Kuiken, Department of Virology, Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 2040, 3015 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: t.kuiken/at/erasmusmc.nl. See related Commentary on page 1089 Supported by the VIRGO Consortium, an Innovative Cluster approved by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative, and partially funded by the Dutch Government (BSIK 03012), The Netherlands. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
J Infect Dis. 2006 Nov 1; 194 Suppl 2():S127-32.
[J Infect Dis. 2006]Bioessays. 2003 Jul; 25(7):657-71.
[Bioessays. 2003]Virology. 1983 Jun; 127(2):361-73.
[Virology. 1983]Biol Pharm Bull. 2005 Mar; 28(3):399-408.
[Biol Pharm Bull. 2005]Virology. 1994 Nov 15; 205(1):17-23.
[Virology. 1994]Virus Res. 1993 Aug; 29(2):155-65.
[Virus Res. 1993]FASEB J. 1997 Mar; 11(4):248-55.
[FASEB J. 1997]Acta Histochem Suppl. 1990; 40():35-8.
[Acta Histochem Suppl. 1990]Nature. 2006 Mar 23; 440(7083):435-6.
[Nature. 2006]Biol Pharm Bull. 2005 Mar; 28(3):399-408.
[Biol Pharm Bull. 2005]Virology. 2004 Aug 1; 325(2):340-50.
[Virology. 2004]Virus Res. 1993 Aug; 29(2):155-65.
[Virus Res. 1993]Science. 2006 Apr 21; 312(5772):399.
[Science. 2006]Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Jul; 11(7):1036-41.
[Emerg Infect Dis. 2005]J Med Virol. 2001 Mar; 63(3):242-6.
[J Med Virol. 2001]Hum Pathol. 2006 Apr; 37(4):381-90.
[Hum Pathol. 2006]Virus Res. 1993 Aug; 29(2):155-65.
[Virus Res. 1993]Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Oct; 11(10):1545-51.
[Emerg Infect Dis. 2005]J Virol Methods. 1998 Sep; 74(1):57-66.
[J Virol Methods. 1998]Virology. 2006 Jan 20; 344(2):432-8.
[Virology. 2006]J Virol. 1998 Sep; 72(9):7367-73.
[J Virol. 1998]Virus Res. 1993 Aug; 29(2):155-65.
[Virus Res. 1993]Science. 2006 Apr 21; 312(5772):399.
[Science. 2006]N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 29; 353(13):1374-85.
[N Engl J Med. 2005]Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1988 May; 93(3):472-83.
[Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1988]Semin Respir Infect. 1992 Mar; 7(1):38-45.
[Semin Respir Infect. 1992]Vaccine. 2006 Nov 10; 24(44-46):6585-7.
[Vaccine. 2006]J Virol. 1999 Feb; 73(2):1453-9.
[J Virol. 1999]Arch Virol. 1991; 119(1-2):37-42.
[Arch Virol. 1991]Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001 Dec 29; 356(1416):1817-28.
[Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001]Nat Med. 2007 Feb; 13(2):147-9.
[Nat Med. 2007]Nat Med. 2006 Oct; 12(10):1203-7.
[Nat Med. 2006]J Virol. 2007 Mar; 81(6):2736-44.
[J Virol. 2007]Virology. 1978 Jan; 84(1):51-62.
[Virology. 1978]Virus Res. 2000 Jun; 68(1):71-85.
[Virus Res. 2000]Lab Anim Sci. 1992 Jun; 42(3):222-32.
[Lab Anim Sci. 1992]Rev Infect Dis. 1988 Jan-Feb; 10(1):56-75.
[Rev Infect Dis. 1988]J Gen Virol. 1983 Mar; 64 Pt 3():589-98.
[J Gen Virol. 1983]Science. 2006 Apr 21; 312(5772):399.
[Science. 2006]J Virol. 1998 Sep; 72(9):7367-73.
[J Virol. 1998]Virology. 1993 Mar; 193(1):503-6.
[Virology. 1993]Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]Science. 2004 Oct 8; 306(5694):241.
[Science. 2004]J Virol. 2005 Sep; 79(18):11788-800.
[J Virol. 2005]Vet Pathol. 2003 May; 40(3):304-10.
[Vet Pathol. 2003]J Virol. 2005 Aug; 79(16):10821-5.
[J Virol. 2005]J Virol. 2000 Feb; 74(3):1443-50.
[J Virol. 2000]Lancet Infect Dis. 2005 Mar; 5(3):184-8.
[Lancet Infect Dis. 2005]Arch Virol. 1991; 119(1-2):37-42.
[Arch Virol. 1991]N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 29; 353(13):1374-85.
[N Engl J Med. 2005]Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Jul 15; 43(2):132-40.
[Clin Infect Dis. 2006]J Virol. 1988 May; 62(5):1524-9.
[J Virol. 1988]Nat Med. 2006 Oct; 12(10):1203-7.
[Nat Med. 2006]Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Sep; 12(9):1353-60.
[Emerg Infect Dis. 2006]Nature. 2007 Jan 18; 445(7125):319-23.
[Nature. 2007]