1980
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.33.2.915-919.1980
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Induction of neoplasms by subgroup E recombinants of exogenous and endogenous avian retroviruses (Rous-associated virus type 60)

Abstract: Chickens susceptible to infection with subgroup E viruses were inoculated with four independent isolates of Rous-associated virus type 60 (RAV-60) that are subgroup E recombinants of endogenous and exogenous virus. Neoplasms developed in each inoculated group. Therefore, nontransforming viruses of subgroup E can induce lymphoid leukosis at a moderate rate compared with RAV-0, a subgroup E endogenous virus, suggesting that oncogenicity is not a viral envelope (env)-related characteristic. Since the common (c) r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

1980
1980
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even though the RAV-O is a competent replicating virus, it does not, despite a clear homology with the ALV viruses, induce any neoplasia in domestic chickens. Previous studies suggested, but did not prove, that the crucial difference in oncogenic potential resides within the LTR (6,24,29). Both hybridization and T1 oligonucleotide fingerprinting experiments show that the major differences between the ALVs and RAV-O are in the region at the 3' end of viral RNA, and my sequence analysis has demonstrated that the differences lie mostly within the U3 region.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Even though the RAV-O is a competent replicating virus, it does not, despite a clear homology with the ALV viruses, induce any neoplasia in domestic chickens. Previous studies suggested, but did not prove, that the crucial difference in oncogenic potential resides within the LTR (6,24,29). Both hybridization and T1 oligonucleotide fingerprinting experiments show that the major differences between the ALVs and RAV-O are in the region at the 3' end of viral RNA, and my sequence analysis has demonstrated that the differences lie mostly within the U3 region.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…There are several possibilities, some more likely than others. It is possible the RAV-O cannot infect the appropriate target cell, although this is unlikely since subgroup E ALVs are oncogenic (6,24). It is also possible, though unlikely, that RAV-O activates c-myc but kills the target cell.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On the one hand, recarbination analysis indicated that the sequence may be inportant for viral replication (15,16). On the other hand, some investigators have sought to inplicate "c" in leukemogenesis by avian leukosis viruses, which otherwise have no apparent genetic locus devoted to tunmrigenesis (1,17,18). In order to explore the structural boundaries and possible functions of "c", we have determined the sequence of over 900 rucleotides at the 3' end of the genome of the Schmidt-RLppin sugroup A strain of ASV (SR-A ASV).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the long latencies, the apparant monoclonality of T-cell lymphomas, and the lack of in vitro transforming activity of murine leukemia viruses (MuLV), it appears that leukemogenesis involves an indirect mechanism. Several possibilities have been presented, including formation of oncogenic recombinant viruses (6,10,15), induction of transformation by an effect due to viral integration (6), and promotion of somatic events giving rise to transformation due to chronic immune stimulation brought about by viral replication (20,34). One way to distinguish among these possibilities is to study the characteristics of individual lymphoma cell lines with regard to their virological and immunological properties.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%