Pseudorabies virus (PRV) is protected from complement attack by cellular factors and glycoprotein C (gC)

• Published in: Virus research Vol. 84; no. 1; pp. 79 - 87
• Main Authors: Maeda, Kohshi, Hayashi, Sunao, Tanioka, Yoshikuni, Matsumoto, Yasunobu, Otsuka, Haruki
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 20.03.2002
• Subjects: Animals; Cell Line; Complement; Complement System Proteins - immunology; glycoprotein C; Glycoproteins - immunology; Herpesvirus 1, Suid - immunology; Homologous restriction; PRV; Pseudorabies virus; Rabbits; Species Specificity; Swine; Viral Proteins - immunology; Virion - immunology; Homologous restriction; Complement; gC; PRV
• ISSN: 0168-1702; 1872-7492
• DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1702(01)00417-8

Swine kidney derived CPK cells were resistant to swine complement attack in vitro while rabbit kidney derived RK13 cells were destroyed by swine complement. To rabbit complement, RK13 cells were resistant but CPK cells were sensitive. This phenomenon was known as homologous restriction (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78 (1981) 5118). The gC deletion mutant of pseudorabies virus (PRVdlgC) grown in CPK cells was resistant to swine complement while the same virus grown in RK13 cells was neutralized by swine complement. PRVdlgC grown in RK13 cells was more resistant to rabbit complement than the virus grown in CPK cells. Hence, the sensitivity of PRVdlgC to swine or rabbit complement was similar to that of the cells in which the virus was grown. It would appear that cell derived factors were present on the virion and they were protective against homologous complement but not against heterologous complement. The expression of gC rendered PRV more resistant to swine or rabbit complement, but the protective effect of gC was much less than that of cell derived factors. The best protection against complement was obtained when gC and cell derived factors were coexistent on the virion.