Persistence of viral RNA segments in the central nervous system of mice after recovery from acute influenza A virus infection

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 259-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.H Park ◽  
K Matsuda ◽  
Y Sunden ◽  
A Ninomiya ◽  
A Takada ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. e1005075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Schelker ◽  
Caroline Maria Mair ◽  
Fabian Jolmes ◽  
Robert-William Welke ◽  
Edda Klipp ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 381-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fawziah Marra ◽  
Carlo A Marra ◽  
H Grant Stiver

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of amantadine and rimantadine, the first generation antivirals, for the prophylaxis of influenza virus.DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the English language literature using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the Cochrane database from 1966 to April 2002, as well as a manual search of references from retrieved articles, were performed.STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials evaluating amantadine and rimantadine for prophylaxis of naturally occurring influenza A illness were considered. The control arm used either a placebo or an antiviral agent.DATA EXTRACTION: Each trial was assessed by two authors to determine the adequacy of randomization and description of withdrawals. Efficacy data were extracted according to a predefined protocol. Discrepancies in data extraction among the investigators were solved by consensus. Nine prophylaxis studies of amantadine and rimantadine met the criteria for this systematic review.DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven amantadine versus placebo trials (n=1797), three rimantadine versus placebo trials (n=688) and two amantadine versus rimantadine studies (n=455) were included for the meta-analysis on the prevention of influenza A illness. The summary of results for the relative odds of illness indicated a 64% reduction in the amantadine group compared with placebo (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.55, P≤0.001), a 75% reduction in illness for the rimantadine group compared with placebo (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.97, P=0.05) and no significant differences in the odds of illness for the amantadine versus rimantadine groups (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.32, P=0.32). The summary of results examining adverse events showed significantly higher odds of central nervous system adverse reactions and premature withdrawal from the clinical trials in the amantadine-treated group than in the placebo-treated group. Compared with the placebo-treated group, the rimantadine-treated group did not have a significantly higher rate of withdrawal or central nervous system events. However, there was a significant increase in the odds of gastrointestinal adverse events for those treated with rimantadine compared with those treated with placebo (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.17 to 9.55, P=0.03). In the comparative trials of amantadine to rimantadine, rimantadine was associated with an 82% reduction in the odds of central nervous system events (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.00, P=0.05) and a 60% reduction in the odds of discontinuing treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.79, P=0.009).CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that amantadine and rimantadine are superior to placebo in the prevention of influenza A illness. Both antiviral agents have an increased number of adverse events compared with placebo; however, the use of amantadine is associated with significantly higher numbers of central nervous system events and treatment withdrawals compared with rimantadine. Thus, rimantadine should be the preferred agent in this class for the prevention of influenza A virus infection and should be made available in Canada.


2018 ◽  
Vol 201 (8) ◽  
pp. 2354-2368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamus P. Keeler ◽  
Eugene V. Agapov ◽  
Michael E. Hinojosa ◽  
Adam N. Letvin ◽  
Kangyun Wu ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Kun Huang ◽  
Yufei Zhang ◽  
Wenxiao Gong ◽  
Yong Yang ◽  
Lili Jiang ◽  
...  

Central nervous system (CNS) disease is one of the most common extra-respiratory tract complications of influenza A virus (IAV) infections. However, there is still little knowledge about IAV regulating host responses in brain.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Huang ◽  
Yufei Zhang ◽  
Wenxiao Gong ◽  
Yong Yang ◽  
Lili Jiang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The influenza A virus (IAV) enters the central nervous system (CNS) via multiple routes and causes neurological symptoms. In this process, it develops multiple strategies to escape the host anti-viral immune system, and infects the central nervous system (CNS). Progesterone receptor membrane component-1 (PGRMC1) is highly expressed in the CNS, where it exerts a neurotrophic effect. However, how PGRMC1 affects IAV remains unclear.Methods: In this study, we aimed to investigate the role of PGRMC1 in regulating antiviral defense response in brain tissue. Toward this, we used both mouse model of IAV infection and the human neuroblastoma cell line SK-N-SH and human brain glioma cell line U251 . High-throughput RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was used to obtain an unbiased profile of the cellular response to IAV H5N6 infection in mice brain. Results: Here, RNA-seq revealed 240 differentially expressed genes in the IAV-infected brains. Among the significantly down-regulated genes, we focused on the gene encoding progesterone receptor membrane component-1 (PGRMC1) and observed that IAV H5N6 infection clearly inhibited PGRMC1 in both neuroblastoma and glioma cells. Furthermore, treatment with AG205, a PGRMC1-specific inhibitor, or PGRMC1 knockout promoted H5N6 multiplication in vitro, while overexpression of PGRMC1 resulted in opposite effects. Furthermore, AG205 treatment or PGRMC1 knockout significantly inhibited RIG-I-mediated IFN-β signaling pathway and reduced the levels of several antiviral proteins (Mx1 and ISG15). In addition, PGRMC1-mediated regulation of IFN signaling relied on inhibition of the expression and ubiquitination of RIG-I.Conclusion: Conclusively, our results show for the first time that IAV H5N6 down-regulates PGRMC1 expression to contribute to virus proliferation by inhibiting RIG-I-mediated IFN-β production in the brain. These findings may offer new insights regarding the interplay between IAV and host factors that may impact IAV pathogenicity in the brain.


Cell Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 109159
Author(s):  
Xiaoyuan Bai ◽  
Wenxian Yang ◽  
Xiaohan Luan ◽  
Huizi Li ◽  
Heqiao Li ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document