Journal of Gastroenterology

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 147–158 | Cite as

Culture systems for hepatitis E virus

Open Access
Review

Abstract

The lack of an efficient cell culture system for hepatitis E virus (HEV) has greatly hampered detailed analyses of this virus. The first efficient cell culture systems for HEV that were developed were capable of secreting infectious HEV progenies in high titers into culture media, using PLC/PRF/5 cells derived from human hepatocellular carcinoma and A549 cells derived from human lung cancer as host cells. The success achieved with the original genotype 3 JE03-1760F strain has now been extended to various HEV strains in fecal and serum samples obtained from hepatitis E patients and to HEV strains in fecal and serum samples and liver tissues obtained from pigs and wild boar across species barriers. In addition, infectious HEV cDNA clones of the wild-type JE03-1760F strain and its variants have been engineered. Cell culture-generated HEV particles and those in circulating blood were found to be associated with lipids and open reading frame 3 (ORF3) protein, thereby likely contributing to the assembly and release of HEV from infected cells both in vivo and in vitro. The ORF3 protein interacts with the tumor susceptibility gene 101, a critical cellular protein required for the budding of enveloped viruses, through the Pro, Ser, Ala, and Pro (PSAP) motif in infected cells; ORF3 is co-localized with multivesicular bodies (MVBs) in the cytoplasm of infected cells, thus suggesting that HEV requires the MVB pathway for the egress of virus particles. This article reviews the development of efficient cell culture systems for a wide variety of infectious HEV strains obtained from humans, pigs, and wild boar, and also provides details of a new model for virion egress.

Keywords

Hepatitis E virus Cell culture Infectious cDNA clone Virion release 

Abbreviations

CPE

Cytopathic effect

DN

Dominant negative

dpi

Days post-inoculation

ESCRT

Endosomal complex required for transport

HCV

Hepatitis C virus

HEV

Hepatitis E virus

HIV

Human immunodeficiency virus

kb

Kilobases

mAb

Monoclonal antibody

mutLSAL

A PASP mutant with two amino acid substitutions (Pro to Leu) in the PSAP motif of the ORF3 protein

MVB

Multivesicular body

ORFs

Open reading frames

RT-PCR

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction

siRNA

Small interfering RNA

TGN

Trans-Golgi network

Tsg101

Tumor susceptibility gene 101

UTR

Untranslated region

Vps4

Vacuolar protein sorting-associated protein 4

Introduction

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is the causative agent of acute or fulminant hepatitis, which occurs in many parts of the world, principally as a water-borne infection in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America where sanitation conditions are suboptimal, and zoonotically in many industrialized countries including the United States, European countries, and Japan [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Hepatitis E has long been described as a self-limiting hepatitis that never progresses to chronicity [3]. However, since the identification of a case of chronic hepatitis E in Europe, chronicity has been documented in immunocompromised solid-organ transplant recipients and HIV-infected individuals [7, 8, 9].

HEV is classified in the genus Hepevirus within the family Hepeviridae [10]. The virion measures 27–34 nm in diameter and is believed to be non-enveloped, although HEV particles in circulating blood and culture supernatants are associated with lipids, as described in detail below. The HEV genome consists of a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA measuring approximately 7.2 kilobases (kb) in length, which is capped and polyadenylated [11, 12]. It contains a short 5′ untranslated region (UTR), three open reading frames (ORFs: ORF1, ORF2, and ORF3), and a 3′UTR. ORF1 encodes non-structural proteins including methyltransferase, papain-like cysteine protease, helicase, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase [13, 14]. ORF2 and ORF3 overlap, and the ORF2 and ORF3 proteins are translated from a single bicistronic subgenomic RNA measuring 2.2-kb in length [15]. The ORF2 protein is the viral capsid protein, which works for particle assembly, binding to host cells, and eliciting neutralizing antibodies; the crystal structure of a truncated recombinant ORF2 protein has been elucidated [16, 17], but the structure of the whole capsid protein has not yet been resolved [18]. The ORF3 protein, which is a small phosphoprotein made of 113 or 114 amino acids (aa), is necessary for virion release [19, 20], as is described in detail below.

The discoveries of animal strains of HEV from domestic pigs, wild boar, deer, mongoose, rabbits, rats, bats, chickens, and fish (trout) have significantly broadened the host range and genomic diversity of HEV [5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29], and the existence of at least four putative genera in the family Hepeviridae, one comprising human HEV genotypes and closely related animal viruses, and the other three including viruses from rodent (rat), chiropteran (bat), and avian (chicken) hosts, has been suggested [28]. The trout hepevirus might correspond to a separate taxonomic unit of higher rank, e.g., a subfamily [30]. Hepatitis E is now a recognized zoonotic disease, and several species of animals, such as swine, wild boar, and deer, are considered to serve as reservoirs of HEV strains that infect humans [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. The ingestion of uncooked or undercooked meat and the viscera of farmed pigs and wild boar may be the major route of HEV infection in industrialized countries, including Japan [5, 6, 37]. Four major genotypes of HEV that infect humans have been identified [38, 39]. Genotypes 1 and 2 have so far been isolated only from humans and are mainly seen in developing countries. Genotypes 3 and 4 are zoonotic, and have been identified in many sporadic cases affecting middle-aged and elderly men in industrialized countries [4, 39, 40, 41]. Although two HEV strains (JBOAR135-Shiz09 and wbJOY_06) of new unrecognized genotypes, provisionally designated genotypes 5 and 6, respectively, that cluster closely with human HEV strains but are markedly divergent from rat, bat, and avian HEV strains, have been detected from wild boar in Japan, it remains unknown whether these boar strains can infect humans across species [42, 43].

HEV has been regarded as a virus that is impossible to culture in vitro, given the tremendous difficulties in developing a cell culture system. There are no small animal models of infection, and macaques are inaccessible or unaffordable for most researchers in the field. The establishment of a practical cell culture system that facilitates the propagation of HEV in vitro is critical for virological characterization, as well as for studies on the prevention of HEV infection. This article reviews the breakthrough in the establishment of cell culture systems for various HEV strains from humans, pigs, and wild boar, and provides details of a new model for virion egress.

Establishment of cell culture systems for HEV strains of genotypes 3 and 4 found in feces and serial passages of their progenies in cultured cells

HEV usually replicates to low titers in vivo, and growing it in cell culture has proven to be exceedingly difficult. However, a breakthrough has been achieved recently using a fecal specimen from a sporadic case of acute hepatitis E in Japan that contained a very high load of HEV (JE03-1760F strain of genotype 3: 2.0 × 107 copies/ml), which thus enabled the establishment of a robust culture system for HEV. The fecal suspension was used as an inoculum, and the replication capacity of HEV was then evaluated in 21 established cell lines derived from humans, monkeys, cows, dogs, rats, and mice, including three human hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines (HepG2, Huh7, and PLC/PRF/5 cells). The JE03-1760F strain was found to replicate efficiently in two cell lines; PLC/PRF/5 (Alexander) and A549 from human lung cancer [44]. Of note, although A549 cells are not hepatocytes, HEV was shown to be distributed not only in the liver, but also in the lung, kidney, spleen, and even colon in infected pigs [45]. The presence of HEV in bile, lymph nodes, and tonsils in infected pigs has also been reported [46, 47].

Upon inoculation of the JE03-1760F strain, progeny viruses were excreted into the culture media in titers reflective of the HEV inoculum. HEV grew efficiently following the seeding of 1.0 × 105 copies (genome copies per cells: approximately 0.1) in the wells of a six-well microplate containing monolayers of PLC/PRF/5 or A549 cells, and the viral load in the culture medium reached 108 or 107 copies/ml, respectively, on day 50. The first successful propagation of the JE03-1760F strain in PLC/PRF/5 and A549 cells may have been ascribable to the markedly high HEV titer in the inoculum. RNA viruses generally exist as quasispecies [48]. A sample with a high titer has an increased probability of containing variant(s) with advantageous mutations needed to permit the infection of a cultured cell. Notably, the JE03-1760F strain harbored the 29 point mutations with 6 non-synonymous mutations found in the virus in feces, which were not possessed by any of the reported genotype 3 HEV strains [49].

The initial success was followed by the establishment of a culture system with the use of another fecal suspension, from a patient with fulminant hepatitis E, containing the HE-JF5/15F strain of genotype 4 at a high titer (1.3 × 107 copies/ml) [50]. The HE-JF5/15F strain was propagated and passaged more efficiently than the JE03-1760F strain [51]. Epidemiological surveys suggest that HEV of genotype 4 is significantly more frequently associated with a severe form of hepatitis than HEV of genotype 3 [52, 53, 54]. The high replicative activity of HEV genotype 4, reproduced in the culture system for the HE-JF5/15F strain of this genotype, is expected to be useful for elucidating the viral factors associated with the development of fulminant hepatitis E in infected patients.

Furthermore, HEV progenies of the genotype 3 JE03-1760F strain in the culture supernatant grew efficiently through many generations of passages in PLC/PRF/5 and A549 cells (53 generations of passages as of June 2012), with the highest HEV RNA titer in the culture media being 108–109 copies/ml (unpublished observations). In addition, HEV progenies of the genotype 4 HE-JF5/15F strain in the culture supernatant replicated efficiently through many generations of passages in PLC/PRF/5 and A549 cells (33 generations of passages as of June 2012), with the highest HEV loads in the culture supernatants being 109–1010 copies/ml (unpublished observations). Shukla et al. [55] described the adaptation of the Kernow C1 strain, a genotype 3 HEV strain purified from the feces of a chronically infected patient, to growth in human hepatoma cells (HepG2/C3A) selected for a virus recombinant that contained an insertion of 174 ribonucleotides (58 amino acids) of a human ribosomal protein gene. However, no such insertion or deletion of nucleotides was observed in the genomes of the cell-culture adapted JE03-1760F and HE-JF5/15F strains during the long-term passages. No cytopathic effect (CPE) was observed in the PLC/PRF/5 and A549 cells during these serial passages of the JE03-1760F and HE-JF5/15F strains, despite differences in the durations of the cell culture and the changing profile of the HEV load in each passage.

Although HepG2 and Huh7 cells are not permissive for the wild-type JE03-1760F and HE-JF5/15F strains of feces origin, recent studies have demonstrated that both these cell lines are capable of supporting the successful propagation and passages of cell-culture adapted JE03-1760F and HE-JF5/15F strains (unpublished observations).

Propagation of HEV strains found in circulating blood in cultured cells

HEV is an emerging infectious threat to blood safety. There have been a number of publications delineating this threat by providing evidence of the transmissibility of this virus through transfusions. Transfusion-transmitted HEV infection has been reported not only in developing countries (genotype 1) [56], but also in industrialized countries, including Japan and the United Kingdom (genotypes 3 and 4) [57, 58, 59, 60], thus suggesting that HEV in circulating blood can also grow in cultured cells. Therefore, this study examined whether HEV strains in serum samples could replicate in PLC/PRF/5 and A549 cells and release infectious progeny viruses into the culture media; this was investigated in relation to the HEV load, genotype, and co-existence of HEV antibodies [61]. The study revealed that various HEV strains of genotype 1, 3, or 4 in the serum samples obtained from patients with autochthonous or imported hepatitis E could infect and replicate efficiently in PLC/PRF/5 and A549 cells. Notably, HEV strains in all serum samples tested, with or without concurrent HEV antibodies, were successfully propagated in cultured cells when inoculated at an HEV load of ≥105 copies per well in a six-well microplate (Fig. 1). Progeny viruses of serum-derived HEV strains in the culture supernatant were successfully passaged in PLC/PRF/5 and A549 cells, thus indicating that the HEV progenies of serum origin released from cultured cells were infectious, similar to those of feces origin [61].
Fig. 1

Quantification of hepatitis E virus (HEV) RNA in culture supernatants of PLC/PRF/5 cells after inoculation of serum samples at a viral load on the order of 106 (upper panel) or 105 (lower panel) copies per well, containing HEV of the indicated genotype. The asterisks in parentheses indicate serum samples with anti-HEV antibodies. See reference [61] for further details

Characterization of HEV particles in culture supernatant, circulating blood, and feces

An examination of the physicochemical properties of HEV particles in the culture supernatant revealed the HEV particles in cell culture to have a buoyant density of 1.15–1.16 g/ml in sucrose gradients [62], which was identical to the finding in serum samples, irrespective of the presence or absence of circulating anti-HEV antibodies, but markedly lower than that in feces, which peaked at 1.27–1.28 g/ml [61] (Table 1). The great majority (more than 90 %) of HEV particles in the circulation were free of immunoglobulins even in the presence of IgM anti-HEV antibodies [61]. Similar to cell culture-generated HEV particles, HEV particles in serum were non-neutralizable by immune sera and anti-ORF2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that could definitely neutralize the infection of HEV in feces in the cell culture system [44, 62], and few or no virus particles in either the serum or cell culture were captured by anti-ORF2 mAb and anti-ORF3 mAb. Interestingly, however, after treatment with a detergent such as deoxycholic acid, Tween 20, or NP-40, the binding efficiency of HEV particles in serum and culture supernatant to both anti-ORF2 and anti-ORF3 mAbs markedly increased [61], thus suggesting that the HEV virion in both the serum and culture medium possesses the ORF3 protein on its surface, in association with lipids [19].
Table 1

Changes in the buoyant density and antigenicity in hepatitis E virus (HEV) particles of distinct origin after treatment with deoxycholic acid and/or trypsin

HEV particles

Treatment

None

Deoxycholic acida

Deoxycholic acid + trypsina

Culture supernatant

 Density in sucrose (g/ml)

1.15–1.16

1.21–1.24

1.27–1.28

 Detectability by

  Anti-ORF2 mAb

No

Yes

Yes

  Anti-ORF3 mAb

No

Yes

No

 Neutralizability by

  Immune sera

No

Yes

Yes

  Anti-ORF2 mAb

No

Yes

Yes

Serum

 Density in sucrose (g/ml)

1.15–1.16

1.21–1.24

1.27–1.28

 Detectable by

  Anti-ORF2 mAb

No

Yes

Yes

  Anti-ORF3 mAb

No

Yes

No

 Neutralizability by

  Immune sera

No

Yes

Yes

  Anti-ORF2 mAb

No

Yes

Yes

Feces

 Density in sucrose (g/ml)

1.27–1.28

1.27–1.28

1.27–1.28

 Detectability by

  Anti-ORF2 mAb

Yes

Yes

Yes

  Anti-ORF3 mAb

No

No

No

 Neutralizability by

  Immune sera

Yes

Yes

Yes

  Anti-ORF2 mAb

Yes

Yes

Yes

ORF2 open reading frame 2, mAb monoclonal antibody

aTreated with 0.1 % deoxycholic acid and/or 0.1 % trypsin

The detergent-treated HEV virions in the serum and culture medium were partially neutralized by anti-HEV antibodies, which may be ascribable to the incomplete exposure of ORF2 and ORF3 proteins after treatment with detergent only. The cell culture-produced and serum HEV particles treated with both detergent and protease, with a buoyant density of 1.27-1.28 g/ml in sucrose (Table 1), can be neutralized by an anti-HEV immune serum and anti-ORF2 mAb, thus indicating that virions treated with lipid solvent and proteases, possessing the same characteristics as virions from feces, are neutralizable by anti-HEV immune sera. The ORF3 protein is required for virion release from cultured cells. Taken together, these findings indicate that it is very likely that HEV particles are released from both infected cultured cells (in vitro) and infected hepatocytes (in vivo) as lipid-associated virions, accompanied by ORF3 protein, and that the ORF3 protein and lipids are dissociated from the virion after shedding in the bile duct, which contain detergent (deoxycholic acid), and then in the duodenum, which contain protease (trypsin) secreted from the pancreas (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Schematic diagram of the “enveloped” and “non-enveloped” HEV particles in infected hosts. HEV particles excreted from the liver into the circulation are likely to be present as “enveloped” virus with cellular membranes and open reading frame 3 (ORF3) proteins on their surfaces, while the ORF3 protein and cellular membranes are dissociated from the virion after shedding in the bile duct, which contains detergent (deoxycholic acid) and then in the duodenum, which contains protease (trypsin), both secreted from the pancreas

HEV attaches to the host cell via a specific high-affinity receptor and enters the cytoplasm by clathrin-mediated endocytosis [63]. However, virtually nothing is known about the mechanism by which HEV enters susceptible cells. It is interesting that non-neutralizable HEV particles in serum samples and culture supernatant, which are associated with lipids and band at 1.15-1.16 g/ml in sucrose gradients, can bind to cultured cells, although inefficiently, and can be propagated in cultured cells [19]. Furthermore, a lipid solvent did not abolish or increase the infectivity of the HEV progenies obtained from infected cells, and both the cell culture-generated HEV particles and those that were treated with detergent and/or protease were propagated in the cultured cells with nearly identical efficiency [61], regardless of the presence or absence of the ORF3 protein and lipids on the surface. These findings, taken together, suggest that it is unlikely that only a fraction of HEV particles in the serum samples and culture media, partially unaccompanied by lipids, can bind to the cell surface receptors and enter susceptible cells. In order to provide a plausible explanation(s) for this intriguing observed phenomenon, future studies must therefore elucidate whether and how non-neutralizable HEV particles in the serum and culture supernatant can enter susceptible cells.

Propagation of HEV strains in cell culture across species barrier

Shukla et al. [55] recently showed that genotype 3 viruses infected swine cells (LLC-PK1) more efficiently than human cells (HepG2/C3A). A549 cells can also support the replication of swine HEV of genotype 4 in a fecal specimen [64]. However, it remains unclear whether swine HEV strains of genotypes 3 and 4 recovered from domestic pigs and wild boar can grow as efficiently as human HEV strains in human cultured cells, irrespective of the source of the inoculum virus. Therefore, to investigate this problem, liver homogenate, serum and fecal specimens obtained from HEV-infected domestic pigs and wild boar were employed as inocula, and various swine and boar HEV strains were cultivated in A549 and PLC/PRF/5 cells and their replication efficiency was evaluated in relation to the viral load and origin of the inoculum [65].

Inoculation of three HEV RNA-positive liver homogenate samples with a higher HEV load (4.0 × 104–6.6 × 105 copies per well) obtained from raw pig liver, sold as food that had been purchased from grocery stores and kept frozen at −80 °C [6], released HEV progeny viruses into the culture medium. Figure 3a shows that HEV RNA was first detected in the culture medium of A549 cells on the 2nd to 6th day post-inoculation (dpi), with a viral load of 40–220 copies/ml, and continued to increase thereafter, with the highest titer of 1.1–7.3 × 107 copies/ml on 30 dpi. HEV progenies were also released into the culture medium upon the inoculation of fecal and serum samples [65].
Fig. 3

Quantification of HEV RNA in the culture supernatants of A549 cells inoculated with homogenate samples of swine (sw) liver tissues (a) and wild boar (wb) liver tissues (b). Modified from reference [65]

Efficient viral multiplication was observed upon the inoculation of four liver homogenate samples containing boar HEV at an HEV load of 9.8 × 105–6.6 × 106 copies per well [65]. HEV RNA was initially detected on day 2 and reached the highest titer of 9.8 × 107–3.5 × 108 copies/ml on day 50 (Fig. 3b). Overall, HEV progenies were released into the culture medium when swine and boar HEV strains were inoculated at an HEV load of ≥2.0 × 104 copies per well, irrespective of the inoculum source, although the HEV RNA titers in the culture medium of 30 dpi differed markedly, ranging from 1.0 × 102 to 1.1 × 107 copies/ml, by inoculum, when inoculated at viral loads ranging from 2.0 × 104 to 1.1 × 105 copies per well [65]. In sharp contrast, no progenies were detectable in the culture supernatant upon the inoculation of swine and boar HEV strains at an HEV load of <1.8 × 104 copies per well. These results indicate that swine HEV strains of genotypes 3 and 4 from domestic pigs and wild boar can replicate as efficiently as human HEV strains in human cultured cells, thereby supporting the zoonotic nature of HEV in the culture systems for HEV as well.

Construction of infectious cDNA clones of wild-type and mutated HEV genomes and analysis of the function of the ORF3 protein in virion egress

A full-length infectious cDNA clone (pJE03-1760F/wt) of the genotype 3 JE03-1760F strain was developed [66]. The inoculation of the pJE03-1760F/wild-type (wt) virus into PLC/PRF/5 or A549 cells in six-well plates at 1.0 × 105 copies per well allowed the cDNA-derived virus to grow as efficiently as the original feces-derived virus in both PLC/PRF/5 and A549 cells, thus reaching 106 copies/ml on 30 dpi in the respective cells. Therefore, the reverse genetics system for HEV is utilizable in a robust cell culture system to elucidate the mechanism of HEV replication and the functional roles of HEV proteins.

Previous studies suggested the expression of the intact ORF3 protein to be essential for the infection of animals [67, 68], but this protein is not required for infection and virion morphogenesis in vitro [69]. However, an immuno-capture reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay using an anti-ORF3 mAb suggested the presence of ORF3 protein on the surfaces of cell culture-generated HEV particles and those in circulating blood [61, 70]. Therefore, to examine whether ORF3 protein is responsible for virion morphogenesis and viral release from infected cells [19], a full-length cDNA clone of an ORF3-deficient mutant (pJE03-1760F/∆ORF3; hereafter, ∆ORF3 for simplicity) was constructed by mutating the initiation codon of the ORF3 gene (ATG to GCA) on the pJE03-1760F/wt cDNA clone (Fig. 4a).
Fig. 4

Characterization of the ORF3 mutants of HEV. a Schematic illustration of the full-length cDNA clone of the HEV JE03-1760F strain (pJE03-1760F/wild-type [wt]) and its derivative mutants. The nucleotide (nt) sequence of nt 5121–5180 of the full-length cDNA clones of pJE03-1760F/wt and pJE03-1760F/∆ORF3 (∆ORF3, for simplicity) and the amino acid sequence of amino acid (aa) 91–102 of the ORF3 protein of the full-length cDNA clones of pJE03-1760F/wt and its Pro, Ser, Ala, and Pro (PSAP) mutant mutLSAL (pJE03-1760F/mutLSAL; mutLSAL, for simplicity) are aligned. Although not illustrated in the Fig., a Ser-to-Leu mutation at aa 87, which is identical to the majority of reported genotype 3 HEV strains, was also introduced in the mutLSAL. The stop codon of the ORF1 gene and the proposed initiation codons of the ORF2 and ORF3 genes are indicated by lines above the nucleotides. The dots represent nucleotides identical to those at the top (wild-type). The initiation site of subgenomic mRNA transcription [92] is depicted by a vertical line with an arrow facing right. The ∆ORF3 mutant was generated by mutating ATG (Met) to GCA (Ala) at the start codon of the ORF3 gene. The mutLSAL mutant was produced by converting CCC (Pro) to CTC (Leu) at the 95th codon and CCT (Pro) to CTT (Leu) at the 98th codon of the ORF3 gene. b HEV RNA in the culture supernatant (upper panel) and cell lysate (lower panel) of A549 cells inoculated with the culture supernatant of wild-type, ∆ORF3, or mutLSAL RNA-transfected PLC/PRF/5 cells was quantified by measuring the RNA titer by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). c Sucrose density-gradient fractionation of HEV in culture supernatants from PLC/PRF/5 cells transfected with RNA transcripts of wild-type, ΔORF3, or mutLSAL. Modified from reference [71]

The culture supernatant of cells transfected with RNA transcripts of the ∆ORF3 cDNA clone was inoculated onto A549 cells to determine whether the ∆ORF3 mutant virus in the culture medium of the transfected cells was infectious and replication-competent and, if so, whether HEV virions were released from the ∆ORF3 mutant-infected cultured cells. Viral RNA was nearly undetectable in the culture supernatant of A549 cells inoculated with the ∆ORF3 mutant (Fig. 4b). Despite the significantly lower levels of HEV RNA in the culture supernatant of ∆ORF3 mutant-inoculated A549 cells, the intracellular HEV RNA was nearly equal to that observed in cultured cells inoculated with the pJE03-1760F/wt (Fig. 4b). When applied to sucrose density ultracentrifugation, the ∆ORF3 mutant in the culture supernatant of the transfected cells banded at 1.27–1.28 g/ml, in contrast to the pJE03-1760F/wt virus, which peaked at 1.15–1.16 g/ml (Fig. 4c) [19].

The advent of an infectious cDNA clone of genotype 1 HEV (the Sar55 strain), allowed Emerson et al. [20] to confirm the findings of the previous study conducted by using a genotype 3 infectious cDNA clone of the JE03-1760F strain, which reported the ORF3 protein to be essential for virion egress from infected cells, the ORF3 protein to be present on the surfaces of HEV particles released from infected cells, and the HEV particles released from infected cells to be lipid-associated [19]. Genotypes 2 and 4 HEVs have not yet been examined for the function of the ORF3 protein in virion egress using infectious cDNA clones. However, given its conservation, and because the association of HEV virions of genotype 1, 3, or 4 in the blood circulation with ORF3 protein and lipids on the surface has been noted [61], it is very likely that the function of the ORF3 protein related to HEV morphogenesis is common to all HEV strains, irrespective of genotype.

A Pro-rich sequence is present in the C-terminal region of the ORF3 protein in all mammalian and avian HEV strains, and the Pro, Ser, Ala, and Pro (PSAP) motif between amino acid residues 95 and 98 of the ORF3 protein (Fig. 4a) is conserved among all known HEV strains, including avian HEV strains [71]. The introduction of amino acid substitutions (two Pro-to-Leu replacements) in the PSAP motif (mutLSAL) (Fig. 4a) significantly reduced the virus yield in the culture supernatant, similar to an ORF3-deficient variant, ΔORF3 (Fig. 4b). Notably, no significant difference in the intracellular HEV RNA level was observed upon inoculation of the wild-type virus and its ORF3 variants (Fig. 4b). The particles generated in the culture supernatant of the mutLSAL RNA-transfected cells banded at 1.26–1.27 g/ml, similar to the particles in the ΔORF3 RNA-transfected cells (Fig. 4c), thus suggesting that the PSAP motif in the ORF3 protein is indispensable for the formation of membrane-associated HEV particles. Viral particles in the culture supernatant of the mutLSAL RNA-transfected cells were efficiently captured by an anti-ORF2 mAb, but not by an anti-ORF3 mAb, which was similar to the findings observed in the supernatant of the ΔORF3 RNA-transfected cells, with or without prior treatment with 0.1 % sodium deoxycholic acid. These results indicate that an intact PSAP motif in the ORF3 protein plays a pivotal role in the release of HEV particles having lipid-associated membranes and ORF3 protein [71].

Cellular factors involved in the release of hepatitis E virions

Recent studies have revealed that viral matrix proteins play critical roles during the later stages of virus budding in many enveloped RNA viruses, including retroviruses, orthomyxoviruses, rhabdoviruses, and filoviruses: these viral proteins possess a so-called late (L)-domain containing P(T/S)AP, PPxY, and YxxL, which are critical motifs for the efficient release of an enveloped virus [72, 73, 74, 75, 76], and they hijack host proteins in the vacuolar protein sorting pathway [75, 77]. This pathway gives rise to multivesicular bodies (MVBs), which are topologically identical to virus budding [78]. The PTAP motif was first identified in the Gag protein of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and has been reported to bind to the tumor susceptibility gene 101 (Tsg101), which is identified as a critical cellular protein required for the budding of enveloped viruses, e.g., HIV and Ebola virus, from the plasma membrane [79, 80].

Tsg101 binds to the PSAP motif of HEV located within the ORF3 protein [81]. A co-immunoprecipitation procedure also showed the direct interaction of ORF3 protein with Tsg101 and the loss thereof with the PSAP mutations in PLC/PRF/5 cells transfected with a full-length wild-type or mutant ORF3 expression plasmid [71, 82]. These results indicate the requirement of an intact PSAP motif in the ORF3 protein for the formation and release of membrane-associated HEV particles possessing ORF3 proteins on the surface, in agreement with the observation by Emerson et al. [20], who reported the PxxP motif of the ORF3 protein to play an important role in virus egress and infection.

When the intracellular localization of the ORF3 protein and Tsg101 was examined by immunofluorescence confocal microscopy, a high degree of co-localization of wild-type ORF3 protein and Tsg101 was observed in the cytoplasm. In contrast, the mutLSAL ORF3 protein showed essentially no signal of co-localization with Tsg101, despite the fact that the mutated ORF3 protein showed an intracellular localization similar to that of the wild-type ORF3 protein. These results support the notion that the ORF3 protein interacts with Tsg101 through its PSAP motif in infected cells [82]. The effect on virion release from infected cells was examined by utilizing small interfering (si) RNA against Tsg101 to examine whether Tsg101 was functionally involved in HEV budding through its interaction with the ORF3 protein. The depletion of endogenous Tsg101 by siRNA led to a significant reduction of HEV release in cultured cells, although the HEV RNA replication was not affected by the transfection of siRNA against Tsg101. These results indicate that Tsg101 plays a pivotal role specifically in the release of HEV virions, thus corroborating the role attributed to Tsg101 in the budding of other known enveloped viruses such as retroviruses [80], although HEV is known to be a non-enveloped virus. It was also strongly suggested that HEV utilizes the mechanism of cellular MVB sorting, because Tsg101 is a component of the endosomal complex required for transport (ESCRT)-I complex which is involved in MVB sorting.

The vacuolar protein sorting-associated protein 4 (Vps4) ATPase is one of the final effectors in the MVB pathway and functions downstream of Tsg101, and therefore it was hypothesized that dominant negative (DN) mutants of Vps4 might disrupt virion release. In fact, DN mutants of Vps4 inhibit the budding of infectious HIV particles in co-transfection experiments [76]. The overexpression of DN mutants of Vps4 inhibited the release of HEV substantially. The reduction in the release of HEV particles in the presence of DN mutants of Vps4 appears to be due to a specific block in the formation of membrane-associated virions. It is likely that Vps4 is required for the final step in the formation of membrane-associated HEV particles. These results suggest that HEV utilizes the MVB pathway for virion egress, and that the enzymatic activities of Vps4 are involved in the virus release [82].

Whether the membrane-associated HEV particles are generated intracellularly or at the cell surface remains unclear. HEV particles with lipid membranes and the ORF3 protein on their surfaces were found abundantly in the lysates of cells infected with wild-type HEV (unpublished observations), and the ORF3 protein and Tsg101 were co-localized in the cytoplasm, as described above, thus suggesting that mature membrane-associated HEV particles are generated before their release from the surfaces of infected cells. An immunofluorescence assay using anti-ORF3 mAb and antibody against CD63, another MVB marker protein, revealed that the ORF3 protein was co-localized with CD63 in the HEV-infected cells [82]. Taken together, these findings indicate that HEV likely utilizes the cellular ESCRT mechanism in the cytoplasm, but not at the cell surface, to induce the release from infected cells. Further studies are needed to clarify whether membrane-associated HEV particles really bud into the intracellular vesicles formed in infected cells, and whether they are derived from the Golgi apparatus, trans-Golgi network (TGN), or endosomes, and also whether the mature virions are released into the extracellular environment by the exosomal secretion pathway, similar to the pathway in known enveloped viruses such as the hepatitis C virus (HCV) [83, 84].

Although it has been reported that monotherapy using interferon or ribavirin inhibits the viral replication in immunocompromised patients with chronic HEV infection following solid-organ transplantation [85, 86], no approved antiviral drugs are yet available to prevent or treat HEV-associated diseases. A conserved virus release mechanism would therefore be likely to be an excellent target for antiviral drugs, and human tetherin/BST-2 is reported to inhibit the release of HIV, filoviruses, and herpesviruses [87, 88, 89, 90, 91]. It may therefore be interesting to analyze whether tetherin/BST-2 inhibits the virion release of HEV. A better understanding of the mechanisms whereby viruses recruit cellular factors should therefore help greatly in the development of new therapeutic strategies.

Conclusion

This article has described the development of the first efficient cell culture systems for a wide variety of HEV strains from humans, pigs, and wild boar. The unique characteristics of cell-culture-generated HEV particles and those in the circulating blood were reviewed, and the current knowledge on virion egress obtained by the established cell culture models, reinforced by a reverse genetics system, was introduced. These cell culture systems, with the aid of reverse genetics systems, will solve many mysteries and answer numerous questions surrounding the epidemiology of HEV infection, and will be useful for the further understanding of the HEV life cycle and the investigation of potential antiviral drugs, as well as for launching new preventive strategies against this zoonotic pathogen.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to all his coworkers who contributed to the studies cited here. This work was supported in part by grants from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Colson P, Borentain P, Queyriaux B, Kaba M, Moal V, Gallian P, et al. Pig liver sausage as a source of hepatitis E virus transmission to humans. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:825–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dalton HR, Bendall R, Ijaz S, Banks M. Hepatitis E: an emerging infection in developed countries. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:698–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emerson SU, Purcell RH. Hepatitis E virus. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM, Griffin DE, Lamb RA, Martin MA, Roizman B, et al., editors. Fields virology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 3047–58.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Purcell RH, Emerson SU. Hepatitis E: an emerging awareness of an old disease. J Hepatol. 2008;48:494–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tei S, Kitajima N, Takahashi K, Mishiro S. Zoonotic transmission of hepatitis E virus from deer to human beings. Lancet. 2003;362:371–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yazaki Y, Mizuo H, Takahashi M, Nishizawa T, Sasaki N, Gotanda Y, et al. Sporadic acute or fulminant hepatitis E in Hokkaido, Japan, may be food-borne, as suggested by the presence of hepatitis E virus in pig liver as food. J Gen Virol. 2003;84:2351–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalton HR, Bendall RP, Keane FE, Tedder RS, Ijaz S. Persistent carriage of hepatitis E virus in patients with HIV infection. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1025–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamar N, Selves J, Mansuy JM, Ouezzani L, Peron JM, Guitard J, et al. Hepatitis E virus and chronic hepatitis in organ-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:811–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Legrand-Abravanel F, Kamar N, Sandres-Saune K, Garrouste C, Dubois M, Mansuy JM, et al. Characteristics of autochthonous hepatitis E virus infection in solid-organ transplant recipients in France. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:835–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meng XJ, Anderson D, Arankalle VA, Emerson SU, Harrison TJ, Jameel S, et al. In: King AMQ, Adams MJ, Carstens EB, Lefkowitz EJ, editors. Hepeviridae. Virus taxonomy. Ninth report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Oxford: Elsevier/Academic Press;2011. p. 1021–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tam AW, Smith MM, Guerra ME, Huang CC, Bradley DW, Fry KE, et al. Hepatitis E virus (HEV): molecular cloning and sequencing of the full-length viral genome. Virology. 1991;185:120–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kabrane-Lazizi Y, Meng XJ, Purcell RH, Emerson SU. Evidence that the genomic RNA of hepatitis E virus is capped. J Virol. 1999;73:8848–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agrawal S, Gupta D, Panda SK. The 3′ end of hepatitis E virus (HEV) genome binds specifically to the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). Virology. 2001;282:87–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koonin EV, Gorbalenya AE, Purdy MA, Rozanov MN, Reyes GR, Bradley DW. Computer-assisted assignment of functional domains in the nonstructural polyprotein of hepatitis E virus: delineation of an additional group of positive-strand RNA plant and animal viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992;89:8259–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graff J, Torian U, Nguyen H, Emerson SU. A bicistronic subgenomic mRNA encodes both the ORF2 and ORF3 proteins of hepatitis E virus. J Virol. 2006;80:5919–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamashita T, Mori Y, Miyazaki N, Cheng RH, Yoshimura M, Unno H, et al. Biological and immunological characteristics of hepatitis E virus-like particles based on the crystal structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:12986–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xing L, Li TC, Mayazaki N, Simon MN, Wall JS, Moore M, et al. Structure of hepatitis E virion-sized particle reveals an RNA-dependent viral assembly pathway. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:33175–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mori Y, Matsuura Y. Structure of hepatitis E viral particle. Virus Res. 2011;161:59–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamada K, Takahashi M, Hoshino Y, Takahashi H, Ichiyama K, Nagashima S, et al. ORF3 protein of hepatitis E virus is essential for virion release from infected cells. J Gen Virol. 2009;90:1880–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Emerson SU, Nguyen HT, Torian U, Burke D, Engle R, Purcell RH. Release of genotype 1 hepatitis E virus from cultured hepatoma and polarized intestinal cells depends on open reading frame 3 protein and requires an intact PXXP motif. J Virol. 2010;84:9059–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meng XJ, Purcell RH, Halbur PG, Lehman JR, Webb DM, Tsareva TS, et al. A novel virus in swine is closely related to the human hepatitis E virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:9860–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sonoda H, Abe M, Sugimoto T, Sato Y, Bando M, Fukui E, et al. Prevalence of hepatitis E virus (HEV) Infection in wild boars and deer and genetic identification of a genotype 3 HEV from a boar in Japan. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:5371–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakamura M, Takahashi K, Taira K, Taira M, Ohno A, Sakugawa H, et al. Hepatitis E virus infection in wild mongooses of Okinawa, Japan: demonstration of anti-HEV antibodies and a full-genome nucleotide sequence. Hepatol Res. 2006;34:137–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao C, Ma Z, Harrison TJ, Feng R, Zhang C, Qiao Z, et al. A novel genotype of hepatitis E virus prevalent among farmed rabbits in China. J Med Virol. 2009;81:1371–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johne R, Plenge-Bonig A, Hess M, Ulrich RG, Reetz J, Schielke A. Detection of a novel hepatitis E-like virus in faeces of wild rats using a nested broad-spectrum RT-PCR. J Gen Virol. 2010;91:750–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Payne CJ, Ellis TM, Plant SL, Gregory AR, Wilcox GE. Sequence data suggests big liver and spleen disease virus (BLSV) is genetically related to hepatitis E virus. Vet Microbiol. 1999;68:119–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haqshenas G, Shivaprasad HL, Woolcock PR, Read DH, Meng XJ. Genetic identification and characterization of a novel virus related to human hepatitis E virus from chickens with hepatitis-splenomegaly syndrome in the United States. J Gen Virol. 2001;82:2449–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Drexler JF, Seelen A, Corman VM, Fumie Tateno A, Cottontail V, Melim Zerbinati R, et al. Bats worldwide carry hepatitis E-related viruses that form a putative novel genus within the family Hepeviridae. J Virol. 2012;86:9134–47.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Purcell MK, Marjara IS, Batts W, Kurath G, Hansen JD. Transcriptome analysis of rainbow trout infected with high and low virulence strains of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2011;30:84–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Batts W, Yun S, Hedrick R, Winton J. A novel member of the family Hepeviridae from cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii). Virus Res. 2011;158:116–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meng XJ. From barnyard to food table: the omnipresence of hepatitis E virus and risk for zoonotic infection and food safety. Virus Res. 2011;161:23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pavio N, Meng XJ, Renou C. Zoonotic hepatitis E: animal reservoirs and emerging risks. Vet Res. 2010;41:46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nishizawa T, Takahashi M, Mizuo H, Miyajima H, Gotanda Y, Okamoto H. Characterization of Japanese swine and human hepatitis E virus isolates of genotype IV with 99 % identity over the entire genome. J Gen Virol. 2003;84:1245–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Takahashi K, Kitajima N, Abe N, Mishiro S. Complete or near-complete nucleotide sequences of hepatitis E virus genome recovered from a wild boar, a deer, and four patients who ate the deer. Virology. 2004;330:501–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Takahashi M, Nishizawa T, Miyajima H, Gotanda Y, Iita T, Tsuda F, et al. Swine hepatitis E virus strains in Japan form four phylogenetic clusters comparable with those of Japanese isolates of human hepatitis E virus. J Gen Virol. 2003;84:851–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reuter G, Fodor D, Forgach P, Katai A, Szucs G. Characterization and zoonotic potential of endemic hepatitis E virus (HEV) strains in humans and animals in Hungary. J Clin Virol. 2009;44:277–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li TC, Chijiwa K, Sera N, Ishibashi T, Etoh Y, Shinohara Y, et al. Hepatitis E virus transmission from wild boar meat. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:1958–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lu L, Li C, Hagedorn CH. Phylogenetic analysis of global hepatitis E virus sequences: genetic diversity, subtypes and zoonosis. Rev Med Virol. 2006;16:5–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Okamoto H. Genetic variability and evolution of hepatitis E virus. Virus Res. 2007;127:216–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Meng XJ. Recent advances in Hepatitis E virus. J Viral Hepat. 2010;17:153–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Okamoto H, Takahashi M, Nishizawa T. Features of hepatitis E virus infection in Japan. Intern Med. 2003;42:1065–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Takahashi M, Nishizawa T, Sato H, Sato Y, Jirintai, Nagashima S, et al. Analysis of the full-length genome of a hepatitis E virus isolate obtained from a wild boar in Japan that is classifiable into a novel genotype. J Gen Virol. 2011;92:902–8.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Takahashi K, Terada S, Kokuryu H, Arai M, Mishiro S. A wild boar-derived hepatitis E vius isolate presumably representing so far unidentified “genotype 5″. Kanzo. 2010;51:536–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tanaka T, Takahashi M, Kusano E, Okamoto H. Development and evaluation of an efficient cell-culture system for Hepatitis E virus. J Gen Virol. 2007;88:903–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Williams TP, Kasorndorkbua C, Halbur PG, Haqshenas G, Guenette DK, Toth TE, Meng XJ. Evidence of extrahepatic sites of replication of the hepatitis E virus in a swine model. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:3040–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    de Deus N, Casas M, Peralta B, Nofrarías M, Pina S, Martín M, Segalés J. Hepatitis E virus infection dynamics and organic distribution in naturally infected pigs in a farrow-to-finish farm. Vet Microbiol. 2008;25(132):19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee YH, Ha Y, Ahn KK, Chae C. Localisation of swine hepatitis E virus in experimentally infected pigs. Vet J. 2009;179:417–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Domingo E, Martin V, Perales C, Grande-Perez A, Garcia-Arriaza J, Arias A. Viruses as quasispecies: biological implications. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006;299:51–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Takahashi M, Tanaka T, Azuma M, Kusano E, Aikawa T, Shibayama T, et al. Prolonged fecal shedding of hepatitis E virus (HEV) during sporadic acute hepatitis E: evaluation of infectivity of HEV in fecal specimens in a cell culture system. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:3671–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tanaka T, Takahashi M, Takahashi H, Ichiyama K, Hoshino Y, Nagashima S, et al. Development and characterization of a genotype 4 hepatitis E virus cell culture system using a HE-JF5/15F strain recovered from a fulminant hepatitis patient. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47:1906–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Okamoto H. Efficient cell culture systems for hepatitis E virus strains in feces and circulating blood. Rev Med Virol. 2011;21:18–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mizuo H, Yazaki Y, Sugawara K, Tsuda F, Takahashi M, Nishizawa T, et al. Possible risk factors for the transmission of hepatitis E virus and for the severe form of hepatitis E acquired locally in Hokkaido, Japan. J Med Virol. 2005;76:341–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ohnishi S, Kang JH, Maekubo H, Arakawa T, Karino Y, Toyota J, et al. Comparison of clinical features of acute hepatitis caused by hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotypes 3 and 4 in Sapporo, Japan. Hepatol Res. 2006;36:301–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Inoue J, Nishizawa T, Takahashi M, Aikawa T, Mizuo H, Suzuki K, et al. Analysis of the full-length genome of genotype 4 hepatitis E virus isolates from patients with fulminant or acute self-limited hepatitis E. J Med Virol. 2006;78:476–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shukla P, Nguyen HT, Torian U, Engle RE, Faulk K, Dalton HR, et al. Cross-species infections of cultured cells by hepatitis E virus and discovery of an infectious virus-host recombinant. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:2438–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Arankalle VA, Chobe LP. Retrospective analysis of blood transfusion recipients: evidence for post-transfusion hepatitis E. Vox Sang. 2000;79:72–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Matsubayashi K, Kang JH, Sakata H, Takahashi K, Shindo M, Kato M, et al. A case of transfusion-transmitted hepatitis E caused by blood from a donor infected with hepatitis E virus via zoonotic food-borne route. Transfusion. 2008;48:1368–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Matsubayashi K, Nagaoka Y, Sakata H, Sato S, Fukai K, Kato T, et al. Transfusion-transmitted hepatitis E caused by apparently indigenous hepatitis E virus strain in Hokkaido, Japan. Transfusion. 2004;44:934–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mitsui T, Tsukamoto Y, Yamazaki C, Masuko K, Tsuda F, Takahashi M, et al. Prevalence of hepatitis E virus infection among hemodialysis patients in Japan: evidence for infection with a genotype 3 HEV by blood transfusion. J Med Virol. 2004;74:563–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Boxall E, Herborn A, Kochethu G, Pratt G, Adams D, Ijaz S, et al. Transfusion-transmitted hepatitis E in a ‘nonhyperendemic’ country. Transfus Med. 2006;16:79–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Takahashi M, Tanaka T, Takahashi H, Hoshino Y, Nagashima S, Jirintai, et al. Hepatitis E virus (HEV) strains in serum samples can replicate efficiently in cultured cells despite the coexistence of HEV antibodies: characterization of HEV virions in blood circulation. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:1112–25.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Takahashi M, Hoshino Y, Tanaka T, Takahashi H, Nishizawa T, Okamoto H. Production of monoclonal antibodies against hepatitis E virus capsid protein and evaluation of their neutralizing activity in a cell culture system. Arch Virol. 2008;153:657–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kapur N, Thakral D, Durgapal H, Panda SK. Hepatitis E virus enters liver cells through receptor-dependent clathrin-mediated endocytosis. J Viral Hepat. 2012;19:436–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zhang HY, Chen DS, Wu YQ, He QG, Chen HC, Liu ZF. Both swine and human cells are capable to support the replication of swine hepatitis E virus type 4 in vitro. Virus Res. 2011;158:289–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Takahashi H, Tanaka T, Jirintai S, Nagashima S, Takahashi M, Nishizawa T, et al. A549 and PLC/PRF/5 cells can support the efficient propagation of swine and wild boar hepatitis E virus (HEV) strains: demonstration of HEV infectivity of porcine liver sold as food. Arch Virol. 2012;157:235–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yamada K, Takahashi M, Hoshino Y, Takahashi H, Ichiyama K, Tanaka T, et al. Construction of an infectious cDNA clone of hepatitis E virus strain JE03-1760F that can propagate efficiently in cultured cells. J Gen Virol. 2009;90:457–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Graff J, Nguyen H, Yu C, Elkins WR, St Claire M, Purcell RH, et al. The open reading frame 3 gene of hepatitis E virus contains a cis-reactive element and encodes a protein required for infection of macaques. J Virol. 2005;79:6680–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Huang YW, Opriessnig T, Halbur PG, Meng XJ. Initiation at the third in-frame AUG codon of open reading frame 3 of the hepatitis E virus is essential for viral infectivity in vivo. J Virol. 2007;81:3018–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Emerson SU, Nguyen H, Torian U, Purcell RH. ORF3 protein of hepatitis E virus is not required for replication, virion assembly, or infection of hepatoma cells in vitro. J Virol. 2006;80:10457–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Takahashi M, Yamada K, Hoshino Y, Takahashi H, Ichiyama K, Tanaka T, et al. Monoclonal antibodies raised against the ORF3 protein of hepatitis E virus (HEV) can capture HEV particles in culture supernatant and serum but not those in feces. Arch Virol. 2008;153:1703–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nagashima S, Takahashi M, Jirintai, Tanaka T, Yamada K, Nishizawa T, et al. A PSAP motif in the ORF3 protein of hepatitis E virus is necessary for virion release from infected cells. J Gen Virol. 2011;92:269–78.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bouamr F, Melillo JA, Wang MQ, Nagashima K, de Los Santos M, Rein A, et al. PPPYVEPTAP motif is the late domain of human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 Gag and mediates its functional interaction with cellular proteins Nedd4 and Tsg101 (corrected). J Virol. 2003;77:11882–95.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wirblich C, Bhattacharya B, Roy P. Nonstructural protein 3 of bluetongue virus assists virus release by recruiting ESCRT-I protein Tsg101. J Virol. 2006;80:460–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ciancanelli MJ, Basler CF. Mutation of YMYL in the Nipah virus matrix protein abrogates budding and alters subcellular localization. J Virol. 2006;80:12070–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gottlinger HG, Dorfman T, Sodroski JG, Haseltine WA. Effect of mutations affecting the p6 gag protein on human immunodeficiency virus particle release. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88:3195–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Harty RN, Brown ME, Wang G, Huibregtse J, Hayes FP. A PPxY motif within the VP40 protein of Ebola virus interacts physically and functionally with a ubiquitin ligase: implications for filovirus budding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:13871–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wills JW, Craven RC. Form, function, and use of retroviral gag proteins. AIDS. 1991;5:639–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chen BJ, Lamb RA. Mechanisms for enveloped virus budding: can some viruses do without an ESCRT? Virology. 2008;372:221–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Garrus JE, von Schwedler UK, Pornillos OW, Morham SG, Zavitz KH, Wang HE, et al. Tsg101 and the vacuolar protein sorting pathway are essential for HIV-1 budding. Cell. 2001;107:55–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Martin-Serrano J, Zang T, Bieniasz PD. HIV-1 and Ebola virus encode small peptide motifs that recruit Tsg101 to sites of particle assembly to facilitate egress. Nat Med. 2001;7:1313–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Surjit M, Oberoi R, Kumar R, Lal SK. Enhanced alpha1 microglobulin secretion from Hepatitis E virus ORF3-expressing human hepatoma cells is mediated by the tumor susceptibility gene 101. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:8135–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nagashima S, Takahashi M, Jirintai S, Tanaka T, Nishizawa T, Yasuda J, et al. Tumour susceptibility gene 101 and the vacuolar protein sorting pathway are required for the release of hepatitis E virions. J Gen Virol. 2011;92:2838–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lai CK, Jeng KS, Machida K, Lai MM. Hepatitis C virus egress and release depend on endosomal trafficking of core protein. J Virol. 2010;84:11590–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tamai K, Shiina M, Tanaka N, Nakano T, Yamamoto A, Kondo Y, et al. Regulation of hepatitis C virus secretion by the Hrs-dependent exosomal pathway. Virology. 2012;422:377–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Haagsma EB, Riezebos-Brilman A, van den Berg AP, Porte RJ, Niesters HG. Treatment of chronic hepatitis E in liver transplant recipients with pegylated interferon alpha-2b. Liver Transpl. 2010;16:474–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kamar N, Rostaing L, Abravanel F, Garrouste C, Lhomme S, Esposito L, et al. Ribavirin therapy inhibits viral replication on patients with chronic hepatitis e virus infection. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:1612–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Neil SJ, Zang T, Bieniasz PD. Tetherin inhibits retrovirus release and is antagonized by HIV-1 Vpu. Nature. 2008;451:425–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Jouvenet N, Neil SJ, Zhadina M, Zang T, Kratovac Z, Lee Y, et al. Broad-spectrum inhibition of retroviral and filoviral particle release by tetherin. J Virol. 2009;83:1837–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kaletsky RL, Francica JR, Agrawal-Gamse C, Bates P. Tetherin-mediated restriction of filovirus budding is antagonized by the Ebola glycoprotein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:2886–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Mansouri M, Viswanathan K, Douglas JL, Hines J, Gustin J, Moses AV, et al. Molecular mechanism of BST2/tetherin downregulation by K5/MIR2 of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. J Virol. 2009;83:9672–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Sakuma T, Noda T, Urata S, Kawaoka Y, Yasuda J. Inhibition of Lassa and Marburg virus production by tetherin. J Virol. 2009;83:2382–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Ichiyama K, Yamada K, Tanaka T, Nagashima S, Jirintai H, Takahashi M, et al. Determination of the 5′-terminal sequence of subgenomic RNA of hepatitis E virus strains in cultured cells. Arch Virol. 2009;154:1945–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Virology, Department of Infection and ImmunityJichi Medical University School of MedicineTochigiJapan

Personalised recommendations