2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1656(01)00398-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of cell cycle on GFPuv gene expression in the baculovirus expression system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
17
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3). While others have also observed no MOI effect in synchronously infected cultures (Kioukia et al, 1995;Schopf et al, 1990), some groups have reported a dependency (Naggie and Bentley, 1998;Saito et al, 2002). Thus, this observation cannot be generalised to all cell, virus, and media combinations.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…3). While others have also observed no MOI effect in synchronously infected cultures (Kioukia et al, 1995;Schopf et al, 1990), some groups have reported a dependency (Naggie and Bentley, 1998;Saito et al, 2002). Thus, this observation cannot be generalised to all cell, virus, and media combinations.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…These may be the reasons that the infection in the G 1 phase results in more effective virus production. Saito et al (2002) made a similar conclusion that the infection in the G 1 phase of the cell cycle is more effective for recombinant expression and infection yield than in the G 2 /M phase. However, Lynn and Hink (1978) showed that the efficiency of infection in the S phase of TN-368 cells was higher than that in the G 2 phase.…”
Section: Effect Of Growth Phase Of Suspension Culture On Cell Viabilimentioning
confidence: 77%
“…In the BEVS, TN-368 cells synchronized in the S phase were more susceptible to AcMNPV infection than cells exposed in the G 2 /M phase (Lynn and Hink, 1978). The green fluorescent protein expression corresponded to the profile of the G 1 cell cycle in the BEVS and the infection yield at G 1 or S phase-infection was 1.5-1.8-fold higher than that at G 2 /M phase-infection (Saito et al, 2002). An increased viral genome replication and recombinant protein production were observed when the infection occurred at later stages of the cell cycle (Haas et al, 2005), which is different from Saito΄s results (2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Baculovirus was able to produce a "viral S phase," which is a benefit for viral replication (44). It has been reported that cells infected with baculovirus were arrested in the S or G 2 /M phase (5,23,47). It is therefore possible that Ac34 is required to optimize the cellular environment and functions as a regulator to help virus induce the "viral S phase" for increased viral proliferation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%