Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages (November 2014)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets
Advertisements

Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages (July 2014)
Community Behavior and Spatial Regulation within a Bacterial Microcolony in Deep Tissue Sites Serves to Protect against Host Attack  Kimberly M. Davis,
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages (November 2009)
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages (November 2013)
Jennifer R. Hamilton, Gayathri Vijayakumar, Peter Palese  Cell Reports 
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages (January 2014)
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 157, Issue 2, Pages (April 2014)
Volume 87, Issue 1, Pages (July 2015)
Short Class I Major Histocompatibility Complex Cytoplasmic Tails Differing in Charge Detect Arbiters of Lateral Diffusion in the Plasma Membrane  G. George.
Dynamic Interplay among Monocyte-Derived, Dermal, and Resident Lymph Node Dendritic Cells during the Generation of Vaccine Immunity to Fungi  Karen Ersland,
Luisa De Sordi, Varun Khanna, Laurent Debarbieux  Cell Host & Microbe 
Alterations in the Gut Microbiota Associated with HIV-1 Infection
DAI/ZBP1/DLM-1 Complexes with RIP3 to Mediate Virus-Induced Programmed Necrosis that Is Targeted by Murine Cytomegalovirus vIRA  Jason W. Upton, William J.
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages (April 2014)
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages e5 (September 2017)
Brian Yordy, Norifumi Iijima, Anita Huttner, David Leib, Akiko Iwasaki 
Volume 96, Issue 4, Pages e5 (November 2017)
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages (March 2007)
SIV-Induced Instability of the Chimpanzee Gut Microbiome
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 123, Issue 6, Pages (December 2005)
Gestational Stage and IFN-λ Signaling Regulate ZIKV Infection In Utero
A Subset of Polysaccharide Capsules in the Human Symbiont Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron Promote Increased Competitive Fitness in the Mouse Gut  Nathan.
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages e5 (September 2017)
Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages (September 2008)
Volume 153, Issue 4, Pages (May 2013)
Protective Capacity of Memory CD8+ T Cells Is Dictated by Antigen Exposure History and Nature of the Infection  Jeffrey C. Nolz, John T. Harty  Immunity 
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages e3 (September 2017)
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages e4 (October 2017)
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages e7 (July 2017)
Natalie Jing Ma, Farren J. Isaacs  Cell Systems 
Tamar Hermesh, Bruno Moltedo, Thomas M. Moran, Carolina B. López 
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages (June 2014)
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages (November 2009)
Volume 89, Issue 6, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages (November 2013)
Costs and Benefits of Mutational Robustness in RNA Viruses
Volume 6, Issue 6, Pages (December 2009)
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages (August 2011)
Mouse STAT2 Restricts Early Dengue Virus Replication
Blimp-1 Transcription Factor Is Required for the Differentiation of Effector CD8+ T Cells and Memory Responses  Axel Kallies, Annie Xin, Gabrielle T.
Anti-CRISPR Phages Cooperate to Overcome CRISPR-Cas Immunity
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages (July 2009)
Volume 157, Issue 2, Pages (April 2014)
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages (September 2014)
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages (December 2015)
Poxviral B1 Kinase Overcomes Barrier to Autointegration Factor, a Host Defense against Virus Replication  Matthew S. Wiebe, Paula Traktman  Cell Host.
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages (May 2009)
David P. Doupé, Allon M. Klein, Benjamin D. Simons, Philip H. Jones 
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages (October 2010)
Cellular 5′-3′ mRNA Exonuclease Xrn1 Controls Double-Stranded RNA Accumulation and Anti-Viral Responses  Hannah M. Burgess, Ian Mohr  Cell Host & Microbe 
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages (November 2015)
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages (June 2015)
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages (March 2014)
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages (August 2007)
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages (February 2016)
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages (March 2015)
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages (April 2014)
Volume 2, Issue 4, Pages (October 2007)
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages (March 2017)
Michael U. Shiloh, Paolo Manzanillo, Jeffery S. Cox 
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages (June 2014)
Dengue Virus-Induced Autophagy Regulates Lipid Metabolism
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages (June 2012)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 691-700 (November 2014) Influenza A Virus Transmission Bottlenecks Are Defined by Infection Route and Recipient Host  Andrew Varble, Randy A. Albrecht, Simone Backes, Marshall Crumiller, Nicole M. Bouvier, David Sachs, Adolfo García-Sastre, Benjamin R. tenOever  Cell Host & Microbe  Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 691-700 (November 2014) DOI: 10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020 Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Cell Host & Microbe 2014 16, 691-700DOI: (10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Design and Characterization Of Barcoded Influenza A Virus (A) (Top) Schematic depicting wild-type (WT) segment eight of influenza A vRNA which encodes two nonstructural (NS) proteins (depicted in green and blue). (Bottom) Modified segment eight encoding separated reading frames and containing a barcode inserted at the position indicated by the asterisk. (B) Multicycle growth curve of WT or barcode-containing (BC) A/California/04/2009 (moi = 0.05) in A549 cells, harvested at indicated hours postinfection (hpi) and titered as plaque-forming units per ml (pfu/mL). Data are represented as mean ± SEM; LOD, limit of detection. See also Figure S1. Cell Host & Microbe 2014 16, 691-700DOI: (10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Propagation of Influenza A Virus In Vitro and In Ovo (A) Plots representing viral barcodes present in the overall viral populations. Each color depicts a unique barcode whose relative proportion corresponds to its abundance in the virus population in the indicated sample. “Library” denotes starting virus material. The three panels represent triplicate experiments (Set 1 through Set 3) performed in MDCK cells following administration of the virus library (moi = 0.01 [10,000 plaque-forming units]). Samples were analyzed at 48 hr postinfection (hpi). (B) Experiments performed as described in (A) using human a human lung epithelial cell line (A549s) infected with 10,000 plaque-forming units of the barcoded library. (C) Experiments performed as described in (B) using embryonated-chicken eggs infected with 10,000 plaque-forming units of the barcoded library. See also Figure S2 and Table S1. Cell Host & Microbe 2014 16, 691-700DOI: (10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Transmission Bottlenecks in Guinea Pigs (A) Viral titers in the nasal washes of guinea pigs collected at indicated days postinfection (dpi) are reported as plaque-forming units (pfu/mL). Solid lines depict inoculated animals (DI), whereas dashed lines denote naive animals that were housed in neighboring cages where both contact and aerosol transmission was possible (RI). A–D indicate individual cages. (B) Plots representing viral barcodes present in viral populations. Each color depicts a unique barcode whose relative proportion corresponds to its abundance in the virus population in the indicated sample. “Library” denotes starting virus material, whereas direct infection on day 2 or recipient infections on days 6 or 8 are denoted as DI, d6 RI, or d8 RI, respectively. See also Table S2. Cell Host & Microbe 2014 16, 691-700DOI: (10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Transmission from Single Donor to Multiple Recipient Guinea Pigs (A) Viral titers in the nasal washes of guinea pigs collected at indicated days postinfection (dpi) are reported as plaque-forming units (pfu/mL). Solid line depicts inoculated animals (DI), whereas dashed lines denote titers from three naive recipient guinea pigs placed into direct contact with the donor 1 day postinfection (CI). A–D indicate individual cocaged animals. (B) Plots representing viral barcodes present in viral populations. Each color depicts a unique barcode whose relative proportion corresponds to its abundance in the virus population in the indicated sample. “Library” denotes starting virus material, whereas direct infection on day 2 or recipient infections on days 4 or 7 are denoted as DI, d4 DI, or d7 DI, respectively. See also Table S3. Cell Host & Microbe 2014 16, 691-700DOI: (10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Transmission Bottlenecks in Contact- and Airborne-Infected Ferrets (A) Nasal wash titers of ferrets collected at indicated days postinfection (dpi) and measured as plaque-forming units per milliliter (pfu/mL). Solid lines depict inoculated donor animals, whereas dashed lines denote naive recipient cage mates placed into direct contact 1 day postinfection. A–C indicate individual cages. (B) Plot representing viral populations. Each color depicts a unique barcode whose relative proportion corresponds to its abundance in the virus population in the indicated sample. “Library” denotes starting virus material, whereas direct infection on day 2 or CIs on day 4 are denoted as “DI” or “CI,” respectively. (C) Nasal wash titers of ferrets as described in (A). Solid lines depict directly inoculated animals, and dashed lines indicate animals placed into airborne contact 1 day postinfection. A–C indicate individual cages. (D) Plot as described in (B), where “DI” and “AI” were measures of day 2 and 6 nasal washes from (C), respectively. LOD, limit of detection. See also Figure S3 and Table S4. Cell Host & Microbe 2014 16, 691-700DOI: (10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Statistical Nature of Stochastic Bottleneck (A) Data were fitted with a step-response function of the form 1-e−ax, a = 17.95). (B) A population of viruses passed through a stochastic bottleneck will generate a variable number of possible outcomes. A Monte-Carlo simulation using identical initial conditions to those found in the laboratory, in which each virus was assigned a probability of transmission based on the fitted function in (A), generated a large distribution of outcomes. Blue bars indicated the average (expected) outcome distribution, with the observed distribution plotted in red. (C) Sum-of-squares distance to mean distribution. The similarity between each distribution (simulated or observed) and the expected distribution was calculated using the sum of the squared difference between each of the 15 measurements shown in (B). Distributions dissimilar to the expected distribution will have larger sum-of-squares distances than those similar. The distance of the observed distribution from the mean fell in the 30th percentile of the simulated distributions (solid red line). Cell Host & Microbe 2014 16, 691-700DOI: (10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Virus Populations in Upper and Lower Respiratory Tracts during Transmission (A) Plot representing viral populations during direct transmission. Donor ferrets were put into direct contact with naive recipients 1 day postinfection. Each color depicts a unique barcode whose relative proportion corresponds to its abundance in the virus population in the indicated sample. “Library” denotes starting virus material, “NW” depicts nasal wash from donor animals on day 2, “BR” depicts bronchus tissue harvested from donor animals on day 4, and “CI” depicts nasal washes from contact-infected animals on day 4. (B) Viruses from ferret contact experiment were divided into viruses that transmitted (transmitters) and those that did not (nontransmitters). Viruses were plotted with respect to their proportion in either the nasal wash or bronchus of directly inoculated animals. (C) Plot as described in (A), where “AI” depicts day 6 nasal washes of airborne-infected animals. (D) Plot as described in (B), where viruses from ferret airborne experiment were divided into viruses that transmitted (transmitters) and those that did not (nontransmitters). Data are represented as mean. Two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test was used to calculate p value, ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.0001. LOD, limit of detection. See also Figure S4. Cell Host & Microbe 2014 16, 691-700DOI: (10.1016/j.chom.2014.09.020) Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions