West Nile Virus Differentially Modulates the Unfolded Protein Response To Facilitate Replication and Immune Evasion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For intracellular survival it is imperative that viruses have the capacity to manipulate various cellular responses, including metabolic and biosynthetic pathways. The unfolded protein response (UPR) is induced by various external and internal stimuli, including the accumulation of misfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Our previous studies have indicated that the replication and assembly of the flavivirus West Nile virus strain Kunjin virus (WNV(KUN)) is intimately associated with the ER. Thus, we sought to determine whether the UPR was induced during WNV(KUN) infection. WNV(KUN) induces UPR signaling during replication, which is coordinated with peak replication. Interestingly, signaling is biased toward the ATF6/IRE-1 arm of the response, with high levels of Xbp-1 activation but negligible eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2α phosphorylation and downstream transcription. We show that the PERK-mediated response may partially regulate replication, since external UPR stimulation had a limiting effect on early replication events and cells deficient for PERK demonstrated increased replication and virus release. Significantly, we show that the WNV(KUN) hydrophobic nonstructural proteins NS4A and NS4B are potent inducers of the UPR, which displayed a high correlation in inhibiting Jak-STAT signaling in response to alpha interferon (IFN-α). Sequential removal of the transmembrane domains of NS4A showed that reducing hydrophobicity decreased UPR signaling and restored IFN-α-mediated activation. Overall, these results suggest that WNV(KUN) can stimulate the UPR to facilitate replication and that the induction of a general ER stress response, regulated by hydrophobic WNV(KUN) proteins, can potentiate the inhibition of the antiviral signaling pathway.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".