Skip to main content
Download PDF

The immune response to Nipah virus infection

Archives of Virology volume 157, pages 1635–1641 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Nipah virus has recently emerged as a zoonotic agent that is highly pathogenic in humans. Outbreaks have occurred regularly over the last two decades in South and Southeast Asia, where mortality rates reach as high as 100 %. The natural reservoir of Nipah virus has been identified as bats from the Pteropus family, where infection is largely asymptomatic. Human disease is characterized by both respiratory and encephalitic components, and thus far, no effective vaccine or intervention strategies are available. Little is know about how the immune response of either the reservoir host or incidental hosts responds to infection, and how this immune response is either inadequate or might contribute to disease in the dead-end host. Experimental vaccines strategies have given us some insight into the immunological requirements for protection. This review summarizes our current understanding of the immune response to Nipah virus infection and emphasizes the need for further research.

Introduction

Nipah virus is a member of the genus Henipavirus in the family Paramyxoviridae. It was recently suggested that Nipah viruses should be classified into two genotypes: genotype M, including virus isolates from Malaysia and Cambodia, and genotype B, including isolates from Bangladesh and India [35]. Nipah virus has a nonsegmented, negative-strand RNA genome of 18,246 or 18,252 nucleotides [27]. The Nipah virus genome encodes six structural proteins: the nucleoprotein N, phosphoprotein P, matrixprotein M, fusion protein F, receptor-binding glycoprotein G, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase L. Within the P gene, an alternative start codon results in the production of the small protein C. Furthermore, editing of the P mRNA results in the production of proteins V and W through the insertion of one or two nontemplated G residues [17]. The three nonstructural proteins have been shown to antagonize the host innate immune response in vitro; proteins V and C have been shown to play an important role in Nipah virus pathogenicity in a hamster model [70].

Nipah virus was first detected during an outbreak of respiratory and neurological disease in pigs and humans in Malaysia in 1998-1999. The virus spread to Singapore and caused 276 human cases of encephalitis, with 106 fatalities [10]. A second outbreak of Nipah virus infection was retrospectively shown to have occurred in India in 2001 [6]. Since 2001, outbreaks of Nipah virus infection have occurred almost yearly in Bangladesh.

Different Nipah virus transmission cycles from the natural reservoir to humans appear to exist. In Malaysia, pigs function as an intermediate and amplifying host. Epidemiological data suggest that in Bangladesh, Nipah virus is transmitted to humans via consumption of date palm juice that is contaminated by bats during collection [36, 45]. Moreover, human-to-human transmission appears to play an important role in the spread of Nipah virus during outbreaks in Bangladesh. It is estimated that ~50 % of cases in Bangladesh between 2001 and 2007 were the result of human-to-human transmission [37].

The majority of clinical data on Nipah virus infections were gathered during the initial Nipah virus outbreak in Malaysia. The average incubation period for Nipah virus is 10 days, but incubation periods as short as several days up to more than 4 weeks have been observed [8]. Initial symptoms of Nipah virus infection include fever, headache, myalgia, chills and rigors [8, 23]. Approximately a quarter of patients in Malaysia also showed signs of respiratory disease. A large percentage of patients go on to develop neurological signs including drowsiness and confusion. Approximately 19 % of patients suffered from neurological deficits lasting at least 4 months after the onset of illness [8, 51]. The mortality rate during the outbreak in Malaysia was ~40 % [8], but higher case fatality rates have been reported for Nipah virus outbreaks in Bangladesh. Nipah virus could be isolated from urine, saliva and oropharyngeal secretions up to seven days after onset of disease [12, 23]. Isolation of Nipah virus from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was associated with a poor disease outcome [11].

Autopsies were performed on 32 deceased patients from the Malaysia outbreak [66]. Autopsy showed extensive involvement of the blood vessels in the CNS, lung, heart, and kidney, with the CNS being the most affected tissue. Vasculitis was observed in small arteries, arterioles, capillaries and venules. Syncytia were found in endothelial cells in the CNS in 29 % of patients. In the CNS, vasculitis, thrombosis, parenchymal necrosis and the presence of viral inclusions in neurons were the most common observations. Sixty-seven percent of patients showed parenchymal inflammation with infiltration of neutrophils, macrophages, lymphocytes and reactive microglia. In the lung, vasculitis and fibrinoid necrosis was observed in ~60 % of patients. Spleens mainly showed depletion of white pulp [66].

Follow-up studies showed that a relapse or late-onset encephalitis occurred in a small number of patients that had recovered from the initial Nipah virus infection. The recurrence of Nipah virus was observed as late as 22 months after initial disease [59, 68]. Although Nipah virus outbreaks in India and Bangladesh also resulted in a combination of respiratory and neurological disease, severe respiratory involvement was much more common during the latter outbreaks, with case-fatality rates of up to 100 % [9, 31].

Because of the close genetic relationship between Nipah virus and Hendra virus, the search for the natural reservoir of Nipah virus focused primarily on pteropid bat species (flying foxes), the natural host for Hendra virus in Australia [26]. Evidence for Nipah virus circulation in flying foxes has been detected over a wide geographical range including Malaysia, Bangladesh, India, Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand [5, 13, 18, 48, 52, 61, 62, 69]. Recently, serological surveys identified the circulation of henipaviruses in fruit bats in Africa, suggesting an extended geographical distribution of henipaviruses [16, 29, 32]. Based on serology, various species of flying foxes have recently been identified to play a role in the circulation and maintenance of Nipah virus: the island flying fox (Pteropus hypomelanus), Malayan flying fox. (Pteropus vampyrus), the Indian flying fox (Pteropus giganteus) and Leylei’s flying fox (Pteropus lylei) [13, 48, 57]. Moreover, Nipah virus has been isolated from the Malayan flying fox and the island flying fox, confirming the role of flying foxes as a natural reservoir for Nipah virus [13, 46, 57]. Nipah virus is considered to be non-pathogenic in its natural hosts. Experimental infection of Australian grey-headed fruit bats (Pteropus poliocephalus) with Nipah virus did not result in clinical disease, but virus replication occurred as indicated by virus excretion, virus isolation from organs, and seroconversion [43]. These findings were confirmed upon experimental inoculation of Malayan flying foxes and black flying foxes with Hendra virus and Nipah virus, with no disease signs and virus shedding predominantly in urine [28, 43].

This review provides an overview of the current knowledge on the innate and adaptive immune response to Nipah virus infection and discusses the importance of understanding the immune response in the context of vaccine development.

The immune response to Nipah virus infection in the reservoir host-bats

To date, very little is known about how either the reservoir hosts or incidental hosts respond to Nipah virus infection immunologically. Pteropid bats have recently been identified as the natural reservoir of Nipah virus [13, 26, 69]. Presumably, these bats mount a robust immune response to infection, thus controlling viral replication and overt disease. It is likely that Nipah virus is able to modulate the immune response in a way that allows a low-level of viral replication and potential persistence, potentially through evading innate immune responses, as has recently been shown to occur in bat cells [60]. As with many viruses, it is thought that the ability to evade innate immune activation correlates with their pathogenic potential in humans, as evidenced by the multitude of antagonistic strategies employed by virtually all RNA viruses that have been studied to date [4]. This has largely been studied in the context of disease modeling, but little is known how this evasion has come about evolutionarily within the reservoir hosts of these viruses. This ability of Nipah virus to evade innate immune sensing must have evolved in the reservoir bat species, and therefore must be beneficial to the virus, without being overtly deleterious to the host. This evasion likely gives the virus time to establish an active infection, while also modulating the adaptive immune response to allow low-level virus replication. It is possible that the virus is largely eliminated by immune mechanisms but persists at low levels at unknown sites for a period of time. This is supported by the difficulty in isolating virus (or even detecting viral proteins immunohistochemically) from wild-caught or experimentally infected bats [13, 43]. Bats infected with Nipah virus seroconvert and generate measurable titers of neutralizing antibodies, indicative of at least a transient infection, and experimentally infected bats can shed virus intermittently, showing that Nipah virus replicates within these hosts [13, 43]. Currently, other than limited cell culture experiments and the presence of Nipah virus–specific antibodies, little is known about the innate or adaptive immune response to infection in bats. The observation that bats possess neutralizing antibodies (IgG) demonstrates that humoral, as well as CD4+ T cell responses are activated upon infection [28]. Future studies aimed at elucidating the mechanisms through which bats respond to infection without overt pathology might aid in the development of immunomodulatory countermeasures to combat human disease.

The innate immune response to Nipah virus infection in humans and animal models of disease

The first line of defense against invading microbes is the innate immune response. Innate immunity generally refers to the ability of most nucleated cells to sense the invasion of a microbe by the engagement of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) with host-encoded pattern recognition receptors (PRRs). This interaction directs the activation of transcription factors that control the expression of several antiviral proteins, as well as type I and type III interferons (IFNs), which activate additional antiviral responses via the Jak/STAT pathway [53]. Nipah virus genomic RNA is recognized by cellular cytoplasmic RNA helicases to activate IFN responses [25]. Upon recognition, there is a balance between the cell’s ability to activate the innate immune response to defend itself, and the virus’ ability to antagonize it. In vitro, endothelial cells (an important cell type targeted in vivo) infected with Nipah virus produce IFNβ as well as innate chemokines and cytokines, including IP-10 and IL-6, respectively [34]. IP-10 is a chemokine that attracts activated T lymphocytes, whereas IL-6 is a cytokine that stimulates acute-phase proteins and acts as an inflammatory molecule [19, 38]. Not surprisingly, these chemokines have the ability to functionally recruit T cells, which has been demonstrated using in vitro migration assays [34]. This likely contributes to the extensive vasculitis reported in virtually all histopathology studies. In vivo, little is know about the activation of the innate immune system. The expression of innate immune genes has been documented as a response to Nipah virus infection in animal models of disease, including the upregulation of IP-10 and IL-6 [40, 49].

The ability of RNA viruses that cause disease in humans to antagonize the innate immune response seems to be ubiquitous [22]. Nipah virus has been extensively characterized in vitro for its ability to subvert innate immunity by several mechanisms. The P gene of Nipah virus is transcriptionally edited to produce not only the phosphoprotein but also two alternate V and W proteins, and an alternate ORF expresses a C protein [33]. These proteins possess multiple capabilities to inhibit IFN production, as well as downstream signaling. In addition, the expression of these antagonistic genes is temporally regulated during infection [54]. The V protein has been shown to interact with the cytoplasmic RNA helicases to prevent downstream signaling and activation of the IFNb promoter [1]. The W protein inhibits IFNb promoter activation by disrupting the transcription factor IRF3 in the nucleus [56]. Not only do these proteins inhibit IFNb production, but along with the V protein, downstream signaling via IFNb is also antagonized. Both STAT1 and STAT2, which are required for IFNb signaling, are antagonized by Nipah virus P gene products [14, 50, 55].

Employing a reverse genetics approach, the antagonistic function of the P, V, W and C proteins has been assessed in vivo using the hamster model of pathogenesis. Hamsters inoculated with recombinant virus lacking the ability to produce either the C or the V protein display no pathology, and the viral genome is almost undetectable in these animals, indicating that the antagonistic properties for these proteins are responsible for pathogenesis [70]. Additional evidence that the innate immune response can alter the pathogenic process comes from the observation that synthetic RNA (poly I:C), which strongly activates IFN production, is effective in limiting disease and increasing survival of Nipah virus–infected hamsters [21]. Whether the effects are due to the inhibition of viral replication solely through the innate interfering properties of IFN or whether the resulting cytokine/chemokine response augments the adaptive immune response is currently unknown.

The adaptive immune response to Nipah virus infection in humans and animal models of disease

Currently, almost no work has been done to investigate whether the adaptive immune response is simply inefficient at dealing with Nipah virus infection or whether the immune response is itself in some way immunopathogenic, that is, a robust, ineffective immune response exacerbating the pathogenic process. Sera from infected patients contain measurable IgM antibodies as early as four days after exposure, and the presence of IgG in patients following infection indicates that both B cell and CD4 + T cell responses are elicited in response to virus infection [47].

Presumably, disease is at least partially a consequence of a insufficient adaptive immune response, although immune cell infiltration observed in patients who have succumbed to disease indicates that immune recruitment, leading to acute vasculitis, might contribute to disease [30, 66]. This question has been difficult to address due to the lack of animal models of disease for which there are ample reagents to study the immune response. Currently, the most successful animal models that at least partially mimic disease seen in humans are the Syrian hamster, ferret, and cat models [2, 42, 67]. While these models are useful in the initial study and development of vaccines, they are less useful for the study of mechanisms of disease and protection afforded by vaccination, due to their outbred nature and lack of immune-related reagents. Recently, a non-human primate model of Nipah virus disease has been described that seems to closely recapitulate human disease, but this model is cumbersome for use in mechanistic studies for obvious reasons [20]. Unfortunately, a laboratory mouse model has yet to be described for Nipah virus infection, never mind disease. Although it is possible that immunocompromised mouse models, such as aged, interferon-alpha receptor (IFNAR) knockout, or signal transducer and activator of transcription-1 (STAT1) knockout mice would develop disease, these models are of limited use in both innate and adaptive immunology studies.

Although almost nothing is known about natural immunity in naïve humans and animal models, some insight into the requirements of the adaptive immune response in combating infection has been gained by vaccine and immunotherapeutic studies that have been performed with wide success in animal models, as summarized in Table 1. Several vaccine platforms have been enlisted, including subunit, viral vector, virus-like particle (VLP), and DNA vaccines, although not all platforms have been tested in challenge models. All of these vaccines have been designed with the goal of eliciting neutralizing antibody responses by consisting of, or encoding, either the G or F (or both) surface glycoproteins. The efficacy of these vaccines, most if not all of which induce measurable neutralizing antibodies, suggests that an efficient adaptive immune response against Nipah virus infection benefits from, if not requires, the development of a robust neutralizing antibody response. In addition, prophylactic, as well as post-exposure, administration of hyperimmune sera or neutralizing monoclonal antibodies has demonstrated efficacy in challenge models. Passive antibody transfer of pooled sera from hamsters vaccinated with a vaccinia virus (VV) expressing G, given one hour and again at 24 h post-challenge, protected hamsters from Nipah virus challenge [24]. Using the ferret model, m102.4, a human monoclonal antibody, given ten hours after Nipah virus challenge was completely protective [2]. This antibody has also been successful in protecting non-human primates from Hendra virus–induced disease when given post-exposure [3].

Table 1 Summary of Nipah virus vaccine strategies
Full size table

While neutralizing antibodies are highly protective when elicited/administered before or shortly after infection, it is unknown what role, if any, the cellular adaptive immune response plays in either protection by vaccination or natural immunity. Currently, no vaccine strategies have been used to address this, partially due to the lack of syngeneic cell lines to measure CTL activity, or antibodies to measure CD8+ (or CD4+) CTL responses by flow cytometry or to measure cytokines in these animal models. To investigate the contribution of the cellular response, one approach might be to develop and measure the efficacy of vaccines that are comprised of, or encode, either non-structural Nipah virus proteins or parts of structural proteins that do not contain epitopes that elicit neutralizing antibodies.

Immunopathology is another possible result of infection. Interestingly, one way in which the immune response may exacerbate disease is by disseminating virus. Recently, it has been shown that viable Nipah virus can be carried by lymphocytes and monocytes without productively infecting or perhaps even entering these cells, only to be released at sites distant from the initial infection [39]. This may be a way in which the immune system actively participates in the dissemination of virus and may explain the widespread viral distribution observed despite little (or no) viremia detectable in disease models. Recently, it was reported that porcine monocytes, natural killer cells, and CD6+/CD8+ T cells support Nipah virus replication, which may facilitate dissemination of the virus [58].

Future perspectives

Almost 15 years have passed since the first documented Nipah virus outbreak in humans, and Nipah virus has subsequently caused outbreaks in Bangladesh on an almost yearly basis. The continuous threat to human and animal health posed by Nipah viruses requires a multi-disciplinary approach focused on preventive and therapeutic intervention strategies. Here, we have highlighted the current knowledge of the immune response to Nipah virus infection.

The difference in pathogenicity of Nipah virus infection in the natural reservoir, flying foxes, and dead-end hosts such as humans, indicates that the natural reservoir has the ability to control the detrimental effects of a Nipah virus infection immunologically. The correlates of this natural immunity are not known. It is likely that a rapid and robust innate immune response, coupled with and augmenting a vigorous adaptive immune response, correlates with a positive outcome. The last decade has seen an increase in interest in studying host-reservoir immunology in relation to their pathogens. For Nipah virus, this has so far not resulted in a conclusive insight in the host-pathogen interaction in the natural host. The availability of tools such as host-specific cell lines and high-throughput sequencing will prove essential in the generation of host-specific reagents and the capability to study host-pathogen interactions.

From the other end of the transmission cycle, the dead-end host, a more comprehensive understanding of the correlates of protection is much needed to design effective prophylactic and therapeutic countermeasures against Nipah virus infection. Several vaccine and antibody treatment experiments have so far yielded promising results in their ability to prevent morbidity and/or mortality in a variety of animal models. As a result of these studies, it is apparent that neutralizing antibodies are beneficial, if not required, for protection from Nipah virus infection. Careful study of the exact mechanism of protection in these studies might also lead to a better understanding of the disease process. Identifying aspects of the immune response that are absent or counter-effective during human Nipah virus infection, may lead to the development of targeted intervention strategies to adapt the immune response in Nipah virus–infected individuals, leading to increased survival rates.

References

  1. Andrejeva J, Childs KS, Young DF, Carlos TS, Stock N, Goodbourn S, Randall RE (2004) The V proteins of paramyxoviruses bind the IFN-inducible RNA helicase, mda-5, and inhibit its activation of the IFN-beta promoter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:17264–17269

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bossart KN, Zhu Z, Middleton D, Klippel J, Crameri G, Bingham J, McEachern JA, Green D, Hancock TJ, Chan YP, Hickey AC, Dimitrov DS, Wang LF, Broder CC (2009) A neutralizing human monoclonal antibody protects against lethal disease in a new ferret model of acute nipah virus infection. PLoS Pathog 5:e1000642

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bossart KN, Geisbert TW, Feldmann H, Zhu Z, Feldmann F, Geisbert JB, Yan L, Feng YR, Brining D, Scott D, Wang Y, Dimitrov AS, Callison J, Chan YP, Hickey AC, Dimitrov DS, Broder CC, Rockx B (2011) A neutralizing human monoclonal antibody protects african green monkeys from hendra virus challenge. Sci Trans Med 3:105ra103

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brasier AR, García-Sastre A, Lemon SM (2009) Cellular signaling and innate immune responses to RNA virus infections. ASM Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Breed AC, Yu M, Barr JA, Crameri G, Thalmann CM, Wang LF (2010) Prevalence of henipavirus and rubulavirus antibodies in pteropid bats, Papua New Guinea. Emerg Infect Dis 16:1997–1999

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chadha MS, Comer JA, Lowe L, Rota PA, Rollin PE, Bellini WJ, Ksiazek TG, Mishra A (2006) Nipah virus-associated encephalitis outbreak, Siliguri, India. Emerg Infect Dis 12:235–240

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chattopadhyay A, Rose JK (2011) Complementing defective viruses that express separate paramyxovirus glycoproteins provide a new vaccine vector approach. J Virol 85:2004–2011

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chong HT, Kunjapan SR, Thayaparan T, Tong J, Petharunam V, Jusoh MR, Tan CT (2002) Nipah encephalitis outbreak in Malaysia, clinical features in patients from Seremban. Can J Neurol Sci 29:83–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chong HT, Hossain J, Tan CT (2008) Differences in epidemiologic and clinical features of Nipah virus encephalitis between the Malaysian and Bangladesh outbreaks. Neurol Asia 13:23–26

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chua KB, Bellini WJ, Rota PA, Harcourt BH, Tamin A, Lam SK, Ksiazek TG, Rollin PE, Zaki SR, Shieh W, Goldsmith CS, Gubler DJ, Roehrig JT, Eaton B, Gould AR, Olson J, Field H, Daniels P, Ling AE, Peters CJ, Anderson LJ, Mahy BW (2000) Nipah virus: a recently emergent deadly paramyxovirus. Science 288:1432–1435

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chua KB, Lam SK, Tan CT, Hooi PS, Goh KJ, Chew NK, Tan KS, Kamarulzaman A, Wong KT (2000) High mortality in Nipah encephalitis is associated with presence of virus in cerebrospinal fluid. Ann Neurol 48:802–805

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chua KB, Lam SK, Goh KJ, Hooi PS, Ksiazek TG, Kamarulzaman A, Olson J, Tan CT (2001) The presence of Nipah virus in respiratory secretions and urine of patients during an outbreak of Nipah virus encephalitis in Malaysia. J Infect 42:40–43

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chua KB, Koh CL, Hooi PS, Wee KF, Khong JH, Chua BH, Chan YP, Lim ME, Lam SK (2002) Isolation of Nipah virus from Malaysian Island flying-foxes. Microbes Infect 4:145–151

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ciancanelli MJ, Volchkova VA, Shaw ML, Volchkov VE, Basler CF (2009) Nipah virus sequesters inactive STAT1 in the nucleus via a P gene-encoded mechanism. J Virol 83:7828–7841

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Defang GN, Khetawat D, Broder CC, Quinnan GV Jr (2010) Induction of neutralizing antibodies to Hendra and Nipah glycoproteins using a Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus in vivo expression system. Vaccine 29:212–220

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Drexler JF, Corman VM, Gloza-Rausch F, Seebens A, Annan A, Ipsen A, Kruppa T, Muller MA, Kalko EK, Adu-Sarkodie Y, Oppong S, Drosten C (2009) Henipavirus RNA in African bats. PLoS ONE 4:e6367

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eaton BT, Mackenzie JS, Wang L-F (2007) Henipaviruses. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM (eds) Fields virology. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, pp 1587–1600

    Google Scholar 

  18. Epstein JH, Prakash V, Smith CS, Daszak P, McLaughlin AB, Meehan G, Field HE, Cunningham AA (2008) Henipavirus infection in fruit bats (Pteropus giganteus), India. Emerg Infect Dis 14:1309–1311

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gauldie J, Richards C, Harnish D, Lansdorp P, Baumann H (1987) Interferon beta 2/B-cell stimulatory factor type 2 shares identity with monocyte-derived hepatocyte-stimulating factor and regulates the major acute phase protein response in liver cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84:7251–7255

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Geisbert TW, Daddario-DiCaprio KM, Hickey AC, Smith MA, Chan YP, Wang LF, Mattapallil JJ, Geisbert JB, Bossart KN, Broder CC (2010) Development of an acute and highly pathogenic nonhuman primate model of Nipah virus infection. PLoS ONE 5:e10690

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Georges-Courbot MC, Contamin H, Faure C, Loth P, Baize S, Leyssen P, Neyts J, Deubel V (2006) Poly(I)-poly(C12U) but not ribavirin prevents death in a hamster model of Nipah virus infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:1768–1772

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gerlier D, Lyles DS (2011) Interplay between innate immunity and negative-strand RNA viruses: towards a rational model. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 75:468–490 (second page of table of contents)

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goh KJ, Tan CT, Chew NK, Tan PS, Kamarulzaman A, Sarji SA, Wong KT, Abdullah BJ, Chua KB, Lam SK (2000) Clinical features of Nipah virus encephalitis among pig farmers in Malaysia. N Engl J Med 342:1229–1235

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guillaume V, Contamin H, Loth P, Georges-Courbot MC, Lefeuvre A, Marianneau P, Chua KB, Lam SK, Buckland R, Deubel V, Wild TF (2004) Nipah virus: vaccination and passive protection studies in a hamster model. J Virol 78:834–840

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Habjan M, Andersson I, Klingstrom J, Schumann M, Martin A, Zimmermann P, Wagner V, Pichlmair A, Schneider U, Muhlberger E, Mirazimi A, Weber F (2008) Processing of genome 5′ termini as a strategy of negative-strand RNA viruses to avoid RIG-I-dependent interferon induction. PLoS ONE 3:e2032

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Halpin K, Young PL, Field HE, Mackenzie JS (2000) Isolation of Hendra virus from pteropid bats: a natural reservoir of Hendra virus. J Gen Virol 81:1927–1932

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Halpin K, Bankamp B, Harcourt BH, Bellini WJ, Rota PA (2004) Nipah virus conforms to the rule of six in a minigenome replication assay. J Gen Virol 85:701–707

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Halpin K, Hyatt AD, Fogarty R, Middleton D, Bingham J, Epstein JH, Rahman SA, Hughes T, Smith C, Field HE, Daszak P (2011) Pteropid bats are confirmed as the reservoir hosts of henipaviruses: a comprehensive experimental study of virus transmission. Am J Trop Med Hyg 85:946–951

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hayman DT, Suu-Ire R, Breed AC, McEachern JA, Wang L, Wood JL, Cunningham AA (2008) Evidence of henipavirus infection in West African fruit bats. PLoS ONE 3:e2739

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hooper P, Zaki S, Daniels P, Middleton D (2001) Comparative pathology of the diseases caused by Hendra and Nipah viruses. Microbes Infect 3:315–322

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hossain MJ, Gurley ES, Montgomery JM, Bell M, Carroll DS, Hsu VP, Formenty P, Croisier A, Bertherat E, Faiz MA, Azad AK, Islam R, Molla MA, Ksiazek TG, Rota PA, Comer JA, Rollin PE, Luby SP, Breiman RF (2008) Clinical presentation of nipah virus infection in Bangladesh. Clin Infect Dis 46:977–984

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Iehle C, Razafitrimo G, Razainirina J, Andriaholinirina N, Goodman SM, Faure C, Georges-Courbot MC, Rousset D, Reynes JM (2007) Henipavirus and Tioman virus antibodies in pteropodid bats, Madagascar. Emerg Infect Dis 13:159–161

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kulkarni S, Volchkova V, Basler CF, Palese P, Volchkov VE, Shaw ML (2009) Nipah virus edits its P gene at high frequency to express the V and W proteins. J Virol 83:3982–3987

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lo MK, Miller D, Aljofan M, Mungall BA, Rollin PE, Bellini WJ, Rota PA (2010) Characterization of the antiviral and inflammatory responses against Nipah virus in endothelial cells and neurons. Virology 404:78–88

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lo MK, Lowe L, Hummel KB, Sazzad HM, Gurley ES, Hossain MJ, Luby SP, Miller DM, Comer JA, Rollin PE, Bellini WJ, Rota PA (2012) Characterization of nipah virus from outbreaks in Bangladesh, 2008–2010. Emerg Infect Dis 18:248–255

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Luby SP, Rahman M, Hossain MJ, Blum LS, Husain MM, Gurley E, Khan R, Ahmed BN, Rahman S, Nahar N, Kenah E, Comer JA, Ksiazek TG (2006) Foodborne transmission of Nipah virus, Bangladesh. Emerg Infect Dis 12:1888–1894

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Luby SP, Hossain MJ, Gurley ES, Ahmed BN, Banu S, Khan SU, Homaira N, Rota PA, Rollin PE, Comer JA, Kenah E, Ksiazek TG, Rahman M (2009) Recurrent zoonotic transmission of Nipah virus into humans, Bangladesh, 2001–2007. Emerg Infect Dis 15:1229–1235

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mahalingam S, Farber JM, Karupiah G (1999) The interferon-inducible chemokines MuMig and Crg-2 exhibit antiviral activity In vivo. J Virol 73:1479–1491

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Mathieu C, Pohl C, Szecsi J, Trajkovic-Bodennec S, Devergnas S, Raoul H, Cosset FL, Gerlier D, Wild TF, Horvat B (2011) Nipah virus uses leukocytes for efficient dissemination within a host. J Virol 85:7863–7871

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mathieu C, Guillaume V, Sabine A, Ong KC, Wong KT, Legras-Lachuer C, Horvat B (2012) Lethal Nipah virus infection induces rapid overexpression of CXCL10. PLoS ONE 7:e32157

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McEachern JA, Bingham J, Crameri G, Green DJ, Hancock TJ, Middleton D, Feng YR, Broder CC, Wang LF, Bossart KN (2008) A recombinant subunit vaccine formulation protects against lethal Nipah virus challenge in cats. Vaccine 26:3842–3852

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Middleton DJ, Westbury HA, Morrissy CJ, van der Heide BM, Russell GM, Braun MA, Hyatt AD (2002) Experimental Nipah virus infection in pigs and cats. J Comp Pathol 126:124–136

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Middleton DJ, Morrissy CJ, van der Heide BM, Russell GM, Braun MA, Westbury HA, Halpin K, Daniels PW (2007) Experimental Nipah virus infection in pteropid bats (Pteropus poliocephalus). J Comp Pathol 136:266–272

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mungall BA, Middleton D, Crameri G, Bingham J, Halpin K, Russell G, Green D, McEachern J, Pritchard LI, Eaton BT, Wang LF, Bossart KN, Broder CC (2006) Feline model of acute nipah virus infection and protection with a soluble glycoprotein-based subunit vaccine. J Virol 80:12293–12302

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rahman MA, Hossain MJ, Sultana S, Homaira N, Khan SU, Rahman M, Gurley ES, Rollin PE, Lo MK, Comer JA, Lowe L, Rota PA, Ksiazek TG, Kenah E, Sharker Y, Luby SP (2012) Date palm sap linked to Nipah virus outbreak in Bangladesh, 2008. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 12:65–72

  46. Rahman SA, Hassan SS, Olival KJ, Mohamed M, Chang LY, Hassan L, Saad NM, Shohaimi SA, Mamat ZC, Naim MS, Epstein JH, Suri AS, Field HE, Daszak P (2010) Characterization of Nipah virus from naturally infected Pteropus vampyrus bats, Malaysia. Emerg Infect Dis 16:1990–1993

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ramasundram V, Tan CT, Chua KB, Chong HT, Goh KJ, Chew NK, Tan KS, Thayaparan T, Kunjapan SR, Petharunam V, Loh YL, Ksiazek TG, Lam SK (2000) Kinetics of IgM and IgG seroconversion in Nipah virus infection. Neurol J Southeast Asia 5:6

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reynes JM, Counor D, Ong S, Faure C, Seng V, Molia S, Walston J, Georges-Courbot MC, Deubel V, Sarthou JL (2005) Nipah virus in Lyle’s flying foxes, Cambodia. Emerg Infect Dis 11:1042–1047

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rockx B, Brining D, Kramer J, Callison J, Ebihara H, Mansfield K, Feldmann H (2011) Clinical outcome of henipavirus infection in hamsters is determined by the route and dose of infection. J Virol 85:7658–7671

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rodriguez JJ, Parisien JP, Horvath CM (2002) Nipah virus V protein evades alpha and gamma interferons by preventing STAT1 and STAT2 activation and nuclear accumulation. J Virol 76:11476–11483

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sejvar JJ, Hossain J, Saha SK, Gurley ES, Banu S, Hamadani JD, Faiz MA, Siddiqui FM, Mohammad QD, Mollah AH, Uddin R, Alam R, Rahman R, Tan CT, Bellini W, Rota P, Breiman RF, Luby SP (2007) Long-term neurological and functional outcome in Nipah virus infection. Ann Neurol 62:235–242

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sendow I, Field HE, Adjid A, Ratnawati A, Breed AC, Darminto, Morrissy C, Daniels P (2010) Screening for Nipah virus infection in West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Zoonoses Public Health 57:499–503

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Seth RB, Sun L, Chen ZJ (2006) Antiviral innate immunity pathways. Cell Res 16:141–147

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Seto J, Qiao L, Guenzel CA, Xiao S, Shaw ML, Hayot F, Sealfon SC (2010) Novel Nipah virus immune-antagonism strategy revealed by experimental and computational study. J Virol 84:10965–10973

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shaw ML, Garcia-Sastre A, Palese P, Basler CF (2004) Nipah virus V and W proteins have a common STAT1-binding domain yet inhibit STAT1 activation from the cytoplasmic and nuclear compartments, respectively. J Virol 78:5633–5641

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shaw ML, Cardenas WB, Zamarin D, Palese P, Basler CF (2005) Nuclear localization of the Nipah virus W protein allows for inhibition of both virus- and toll-like receptor 3-triggered signaling pathways. J Virol 79:6078–6088

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sohayati AR, Hassan L, Sharifah SH, Lazarus K, Zaini CM, Epstein JH, Shamsyul Naim N, Field HE, Arshad SS, Abdul Aziz J, Daszak P (2011) Evidence for Nipah virus recrudescence and serological patterns of captive Pteropus vampyrus. Epidemiol Infect 139:1570–1579

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Stachowiak B, Weingartl HM (2012) Nipah virus infects specific subsets of porcine peripheral blood mononuclear cells. PLoS ONE 7:e30855

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tan CT, Goh KJ, Wong KT, Sarji SA, Chua KB, Chew NK, Murugasu P, Loh YL, Chong HT, Tan KS, Thayaparan T, Kumar S, Jusoh MR (2002) Relapsed and late-onset Nipah encephalitis. Ann Neurol 51:703–708

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Virtue ER, Marsh GA, Baker ML, Wang LF (2011) Interferon production and signaling pathways are antagonized during henipavirus infection of fruit bat cell lines. PLoS ONE 6:e22488

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wacharapluesadee S, Lumlertdacha B, Boongird K, Wanghongsa S, Chanhome L, Rollin P, Stockton P, Rupprecht CE, Ksiazek TG, Hemachudha T (2005) Bat Nipah virus, Thailand. Emerg Infect Dis 11:1949–1951

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wacharapluesadee S, Boongird K, Wanghongsa S, Ratanasetyuth N, Supavonwong P, Saengsen D, Gongal GN, Hemachudha T (2010) A longitudinal study of the prevalence of Nipah virus in Pteropus lylei bats in Thailand: evidence for seasonal preference in disease transmission. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 10:183–190

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Walpita P, Barr J, Sherman M, Basler CF, Wang L (2011) Vaccine potential of Nipah virus-like particles. PLoS ONE 6:e18437

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang X, Ge J, Hu S, Wang Q, Wen Z, Chen H, Bu Z (2006) Efficacy of DNA immunization with F and G protein genes of Nipah virus. Ann NY Acad Sci 1081:243–245

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Weingartl HM, Berhane Y, Caswell JL, Loosmore S, Audonnet JC, Roth JA, Czub M (2006) Recombinant nipah virus vaccines protect pigs against challenge. J Virol 80:7929–7938

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wong KT, Shieh WJ, Kumar S, Norain K, Abdullah W, Guarner J, Goldsmith CS, Chua KB, Lam SK, Tan CT, Goh KJ, Chong HT, Jusoh R, Rollin PE, Ksiazek TG, Zaki SR (2002) Nipah virus infection: pathology and pathogenesis of an emerging paramyxoviral zoonosis. Am J Pathol 161:2153–2167

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wong KT, Grosjean I, Brisson C, Blanquier B, Fevre-Montange M, Bernard A, Loth P, Georges-Courbot MC, Chevallier M, Akaoka H, Marianneau P, Lam SK, Wild TF, Deubel V (2003) A golden hamster model for human acute Nipah virus infection. Am J Pathol 163:2127–2137

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wong SC, Ooi MH, Wong MN, Tio PH, Solomon T, Cardosa MJ (2001) Late presentation of Nipah virus encephalitis and kinetics of the humoral immune response. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 71:552–554

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Yob JM, Field H, Rashdi AM, Morrissy C, van der Heide B, Rota P, bin Adzhar A, White J, Daniels P, Jamaluddin A, Ksiazek T (2001) Nipah virus infection in bats (order Chiroptera) in peninsular Malaysia. Emerg Infect Dis 7:439–441

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Yoneda M, Guillaume V, Sato H, Fujita K, Georges-Courbot MC, Ikeda F, Omi M, Muto-Terao Y, Wild TF, Kai C (2010) The nonstructural proteins of Nipah virus play a key role in pathogenicity in experimentally infected animals. PLoS ONE 5:e12709

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Hamilton, MT, USA

    Joseph Prescott, Emmie de Wit, Heinz Feldmann & Vincent J. Munster

Authors
  1. Joseph Prescott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmie de Wit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heinz Feldmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vincent J. Munster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent J. Munster.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prescott, J., de Wit, E., Feldmann, H. et al. The immune response to Nipah virus infection. Arch Virol 157, 1635–1641 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-012-1352-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-012-1352-5

Keywords

  • Innate Immune Response
  • Adaptive Immune Response
  • Natural Reservoir
  • Nipah Virus
  • Neutralize Antibody Response