IRF2 inhibits ZIKV replication by promoting FAM111A expression to enhance the host restriction effect of RFC3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although interferon regulatory factor 2 (IRF2) was reported to stimulate virus replication by suppressing the type I interferon signaling pathway, because cell cycle arrest was found to promote viral replication, IRF2-regulated replication fork factor (FAM111A and RFC3) might be able to affect ZIKV replication. In this study, we aimed to investigate the function of IRF2, FAM111A and RFC3 to ZIKV replication and underlying mechanism. METHODS: siIRF2, siFAM111A, siRFC3 and pIRF2 in ZIKV-infected A549, 2FTGH and U5A cells were used to explore the mechanism of IRF2 to inhibit ZIKV replication. In addition, their expression was analyzed by RT-qPCR and western blots, respectively. RESULTS: In this study, we found IRF2 expression was increased in ZIKV-infected A549 cells and IRF2 inhibited ZIKV replication independent of type I IFN signaling pathway. IRF2 could activate FAM111A expression and then enhanced the host restriction effect of RFC3 to inhibit replication of ZIKV. CONCLUSIONS: We speculated the type I interferon signaling pathway might not play a leading role in regulating ZIKV replication in IRF2-silenced cells. We found IRF2 was able to upregulate FAM111A expression and thus enhance the host restriction effect of RFC3 on ZIKV.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".