2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcb.2010.09.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nef does not inhibit F-actin remodelling and HIV-1 cell–cell transmission at the T lymphocyte virological synapse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
21
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
3
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…TSPANs thus negatively regulate events during virus production that impact the quality but not the quantity of viral progeny and thus the efficiency of subsequent rounds of virus replication (104,109,110). In particular, given that Nef and Vpu have been demonstrated to promote cell-cell transmission under certain experimental conditions (111)(112)(113), it is tempting to speculate that these effects are achieved, at least in part, via the deregulation of TSPAN localization and function. Similar to such effects at the virological synapse affecting cell-to-cell spread, modified TSPAN surface exposure might affect cell-cell communication across the immunological synapse, a process potently disrupted by Nef (34-36, 38, 114).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…TSPANs thus negatively regulate events during virus production that impact the quality but not the quantity of viral progeny and thus the efficiency of subsequent rounds of virus replication (104,109,110). In particular, given that Nef and Vpu have been demonstrated to promote cell-cell transmission under certain experimental conditions (111)(112)(113), it is tempting to speculate that these effects are achieved, at least in part, via the deregulation of TSPAN localization and function. Similar to such effects at the virological synapse affecting cell-to-cell spread, modified TSPAN surface exposure might affect cell-cell communication across the immunological synapse, a process potently disrupted by Nef (34-36, 38, 114).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Somewhat surprisingly, given its ability to disrupt triggered actin remodeling, Nef did not affect early steps of the TEM process, including shear-resistant attachment, crawling on the endothelial surface, and formation of potentially invasive and chemokine-sensing filopodia. Nef thus distinguishes between host cell protrusions to achieve simultaneous inhibition of sheet-like actinrich protrusions, such as lamellipodia (25) and promotion of filopodia formation (8,10). Of note, Murooka et al recently described that HIV-1-infected T cells in lymph nodes of humanized mice display reduced motility and form long filopodia-like cell protrusions or nanotubes that facilitate virus transfer to neighboring cells in a manner dependent on the HIV glycoprotein Env (29).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nonetheless, Nef significantly enhances viral replication in primary CD4 + T cells and macrophages that have been exposed to HIV-1 prior to their stimulation with mitogens [32], [33], a function of Nef that is likely determined by enhancement of the initial infection with cell-free HIV-1 [34]. In this regard, a compound that can reduce viral infectivity would be a valuable chemical probe for revealing the underlying mechanism of this function of Nef.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%