Advertisement

Sialic Acid Receptors of Viruses

  • Mikhail Matrosovich
  • Georg Herrler
  • Hans Dieter KlenkEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Topics in Current Chemistry book series (TOPCURRCHEM, volume 367)

Abstract

Sialic acid linked to glycoproteins and gangliosides is used by many viruses as a receptor for cell entry. These viruses include important human and animal pathogens, such as influenza, parainfluenza, mumps, corona, noro, rota, and DNA tumor viruses. Attachment to sialic acid is mediated by receptor binding proteins that are constituents of viral envelopes or exposed at the surface of non-enveloped viruses. Some of these viruses are also equipped with a neuraminidase or a sialyl-O-acetyl-esterase. These receptor-destroying enzymes promote virus release from infected cells and neutralize sialic acid-containing soluble proteins interfering with cell surface binding of the virus. Variations in the receptor specificity are important determinants for host range, tissue tropism, pathogenicity, and transmissibility of these viruses.

Keywords

Ganglioside Mucins Neuraminidase Receptor binding Receptor-destroying enzyme Sialate-O-acetylesterase Virus 

1 Introduction

The initial step in the viral life cycle is the attachment of virus particles to the cell surface. Attachment is mediated by binding of the virus to a receptor. Sometimes co-receptors are also involved that might promote post-attachment events in the entry process. Receptor molecules are constituents of the cell membrane, and the receptor determinant, the structure to which the virus binds, may be either a protein epitope or the carbohydrate of a glycoprotein or a glycolipid. Soluble proteins present in body fluids and in mucus on respiratory and enteric epithelia may also contain such carbohydrates and therefore interfere with virus binding to the cell surface.

Sialic acid was the first virus receptor identified. Hirst and McClelland and Hare discovered that influenza virus is able to hemagglutinate and that adsorbed virus is eluted from erythrocytes on incubation at 37°C, indicating an enzymatic destruction of a receptor substance on the cells [1, 2]. When a similar enzymatic activity was subsequently detected in Vibrio cholerae cultures, the term “receptor-destroying enzyme” was introduced [3]. The substance released by the viral enzyme from soluble hemagglutination inhibitors was initially characterized as a carbohydrate of low molecular weight [4] and then identified in crystalline form as N-acetyl-d-neuraminic acid [5]. Thus, it was clear that the receptor determinant of influenza virus was sialic acid and that the viral enzyme was a neuraminidase. Furthermore, for the first time an important biological function of sialic acid had been identified.

Sialic acid has later also been found to serve as receptor of a large spectrum of other viruses. Most of them will be addressed here, with emphasis, however, on influenza viruses. For additional information we refer to several excellent reviews that have been published in recent years on similar topics [6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

2 Orthomyxoviridae

The orthomyxoviruses are enveloped viruses with a single-stranded, segmented RNA genome of negative polarity [11, 12]. There are five genera in the family: Influenza virus A, B, and C, Thogotovirus, and Isavirus. Influenza A viruses are further divided into subtypes characterized by 16 different hemagglutinins (H1–H16) and 9 different neuraminidases (N1–N9). Except for the Thogotovirus genus, all orthomyxoviruses bind to sialic acid receptors. The receptor of an influenza A virus of subtype H17N10 isolated recently from bats [13] is not known.

2.1 Influenza A and B Viruses

Influenza A viruses are important human and animal pathogens. Their primary natural hosts are aquatic birds from which they are occasionally transmitted to other species. In man they cause outbreaks of respiratory disease that occur as annual epidemics and less frequent pandemics. Influenza B viruses are also believed to be descendants of avian influenza A viruses, but are now largely restricted to humans where they cause respiratory infections as well. Influenza A and B viruses have two envelope glycoproteins, the hemagglutinin (HA) and the neuraminidase (NA), both of which interact with sialic acid.

2.1.1 Hemagglutinin

HA initiates infection by binding to cell surface receptors and by inducing fusion between viral and cellular membranes. HA is integrated in the virus envelope as a type I membrane protein. The ectodomain of HA represents 90% of the polypeptide chain. The residual 10% of the HA sequence accounts for the transmembrane domain and the cytosolic domain. HA is synthesized as a precursor molecule HA0 (75 kDa) which assembles to homotrimers. HA0 is N-glycosylated, palmitoylated, and proteolytically cleaved by host enzymes. The amino-terminal cleavage fragment HA1 (50 kDa) contains the receptor binding site and the carboxy-terminal fragment HA2 (25 kDa) is membrane anchored and responsible for fusion (reviewed in [14]).

The receptor determinant of influenza A and B viruses is sialic acid, mostly N-acetyl-neuraminic acid (Neu5Ac). The structures of complexes of HA of influenza A and B viruses with sialyloligosaccharides were determined by X-ray crystallography (reviewed in [15, 16]). The sialic acid-binding site is a shallow pocket located on the globular head of HA (Fig. 1). Virus binding depends not only on HA affinity for the terminal sialic acid residues, but also on the structure of the underlying oligosaccharide and protein or lipid moieties of the receptors, as well as on the abundance and accessibility of receptors on the cell surface. Because of this complex mode of binding, the receptor-binding properties of influenza viruses can be affected by amino acid substitutions inside the sialic acid-binding pocket, on the pocket rim, and by distant mutations resulting in altered glycosylation or altered electrostatic charge of the globular head of HA (reviewed in [17]). In natural glycoconjugates, sialic acids are α2-3- or α2-6-linked to Gal and GalNAc, α2-6-linked to GlcNAc, or α2-8-linked to the second Sia residue. Influenza viruses generally do not bind to α2-8-linked Neu5Ac and can recognize only α2-3- or α2-6-linked sialic acid moieties such as Neu5Acα2-3/6Gal, Neu5Acα2-3/6GalNAc, and Neu5Acα2-6GlcNAc.
Fig. 1

Sialic acid binding sites of the hemagglutinin (a) and the neuraminidase (b) of influenza A virus and the hemagglutinin-esterase-fusion protein of influenza C virus (c). Molecular surfaces of HA and HEF trimers and the NA tetramer are shown. Receptor-binding sites of HA, HEF and the hemadsorption site of NA are colored yellow. The catalytic sites of NA and HEF are colored green. Sialic acid moieties in the binding sites of HA and NA are shown as stick models. The figure is based on crystal structures 1MQM, 1W20, and 1FLC from Protein Data Bank

Differences in receptor-binding specificity of influenza viruses can contribute to viral host range restriction. Thus, human influenza viruses preferentially bind to α2-6-linked sialic acids (Neu5Acα2-6Gal), whereas avian influenza viruses preferentially recognize Neu5Acα2-3Gal [18, 19, 20]. These preferences are matched by predominant expression of Neu5Acα2-6Gal on epithelial cells in the human airway epithelium and by abundance of Neu5Acα2-3Gal on epithelial cells in the intestinal and respiratory tract of birds [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. The receptor-binding specificity of human and avian influenza viruses suggests that avian viruses need to acquire the ability to recognize human-type receptors to be able to replicate efficiently and transmit in humans. Indeed, the earliest isolates of the 1918, 1957, and 1968 pandemics possessed HA that, although of avian origin, recognized human-type receptors (reviewed in [27, 28]). In light of these findings, the infection of humans with highly pathogenic avian H5N1 viruses seemed to be surprising as H5N1 viruses isolated from infected individuals preferentially recognize Neu5Acα2-3Gal [29, 30, 31]. Studies on human and avian virus infection in differentiated cultures of human airway epithelial cells indicated, however, that some cells in the human airway epithelium express sufficient amounts of receptors to allow infection with avian viruses and that receptor specificity determines the viral cell tropism in the epithelium. Early in infection, human viruses preferentially infected non-ciliated cells, whereas avian viruses mainly infected ciliated cells [32]. Other groups studied expression of viral receptors in human biopsies and archival tissues using lectins Sambucus nigra agglutinin, Maackia amurensis agglutinins I and II, and human and avian influenza viruses as molecular probes [26, 33, 34, 35, 36]. The results obtained in these studies suggest that paucity of receptors for avian viruses in the upper respiratory tract in humans is one of the factors preventing efficient human-to-human transmission. This concept is supported by recent studies showing that H5N1 mutants binding to α2-6 linked sialic acid are transmitted between ferrets through the air [37, 38].

Because pigs support replication of both avian and human viruses, they were considered to be a plausible intermediate host for the generation of human pandemic strains by gene reassortment (reviewed in [39]). This theory was further supported by the finding that both 3-linked and 6-linked sialic acid moieties were detected by staining on the histological sections of pig tracheal epithelium [23]. All early studies on swine influenza viruses were done using viruses that were grown in embryonated chicken eggs. However, similar to human influenza viruses, swine viruses appear to change their receptor specificity in eggs. Indeed, non-egg-adapted classical swine influenza viruses that were isolated and propagated solely in MDCK cells displayed a strict preference for 6-linked sialic acids and did not bind to 3-linked sialic acids [40]. This binding pattern is typical for non-egg-adapted human influenza viruses, and it is in discordance with the previously described ability of egg-adapted swine influenza viruses to recognize Neu5Acα2-3Gal [19, 23]. Thus, the receptor specificity of the pig viruses may be even closer to that of human viruses than originally thought. This notion agrees with recent data on a close similarity in the distribution of sialic acid receptors in the respiratory tract of pigs and humans [24, 26, 41].

The receptor specificity of the novel swine-origin H1N1/2009 pandemic influenza virus has been analyzed in studies employing carbohydrate microarrays. In some of these studies the virus was found to bind exclusively to α2-6-linked sialyl sequences [42, 43, 44, 45], whereas in another study using a different microarray some binding to probes containing α2-3-linkages was also observed [46]. These studies showed also that the H1N1/2009 pandemic virus displayed the same binding profile as its putative swine precursors. The results indicate that no major change in receptor-binding specificity of HA was required for the emergent pandemic virus to acquire human-like characteristics and become established in the human population. Interestingly, mutations in the receptor-binding site of the HA of H1N1/2009 viruses have been detected sporadically, and the D222G substitution has been associated with severe or fatal disease [47, 48]. Compared to the parental virus, the D222G mutant virus displayed enhanced binding to α2-3-linked sugars [45, 49], infected a higher proportion of ciliated cells in cultures of human airway epithelium [49], and showed an altered pattern of attachment to human respiratory tissues in vitro, in particular increased binding to macrophages and type II pneumocytes in the alveoli [50]. These results suggested that the association of the D222G mutation with severe disease in humans reflects receptor-mediated alteration of the cell tropism of the mutant in human respiratory epithelium with enhanced replication in the lower respiratory tract.

Based on early data [18, 20, 51], it was assumed that all avian influenza viruses have similar receptor-binding specificity. The first evidence against this theory was obtained in a study showing that H5N1 viruses isolated in Hong Kong in 1997 from poultry and humans had a lower receptor binding affinity and a lower neuraminidase activity than closely related viruses of aquatic birds [30].

Subsequent detailed receptor-binding studies revealed that influenza viruses adapted to ducks, gulls, and land-based gallinaceous poultry differ in their ability to recognize the sub-terminal saccharides of Neu5Acα2-3Gal-terminated receptors (reviewed in [28, 52]). In particular, duck viruses preferentially bind to receptors with type 1 and type 3 oligosaccharide sequences, such as Neu5Acα2-3Galβ1-3GlcNAc and Neu5Acα2-3Galβ1-3GalNAc, and viruses isolated from gulls show high-avidity binding to fucosylated sialyloligosaccharides Neu5Acα2-3Galβ1-4(Fucα1-3)GlcNAc and Neu5Acα2-3Galβ1-3(Fucα1-4)GlcNAc. In contrast, poultry-adapted viruses preferentially bind to receptors with type 2 sequences, such as Neu5Acα2-3Galβ1-4GlcNAc, with particularly strong binding to the corresponding sulfated analogues Neu5Acα2-3Galβ1-4(6-O-HSO3)GlcNAc and Neu5Acα2-3Galβ1-4(Fucα1-3)(6-O-HSO3)GlcNAc. Furthermore, some viruses of the Eurasian lineage of H9N2 poultry viruses bind to Neu5Acα2-6Gal terminated sialyloligosaccharides [28]. Thus it seems that influenza viruses circulating in different birds can have different receptor specificity owing to distinctions between the sialic acid receptors in these avian species.

2.1.2 Neuraminidase

NA is a type II membrane protein that is present in homotetrameric form in the viral envelope [53]. Each monomer consists of a cytoplasmic tail six amino acids in length, a stem region varying in length between 19 and 45 amino acids, and a carboxy-terminal globular head [53, 54]. The monomers are linked to dimers by disulfide bridges in the stalk region. The available evidence indicates that the neuraminidase has several functions in the life cycle of influenza virus. It was Burnet who proposed more than 60 years ago that the RDE allows the virus to penetrate the mucus layer coating the respiratory epithelium and thus to infect its target cells [3]. This concept has recently been shown to be correct when it was found that the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir prevented initiation of infection of human tracheo-bronchial cell cultures [55]. The second function of the neuraminidase is at the end of the life cycle where it promotes virus release and prevents clumping of virions by removing receptors from the cell surface and viral glycoproteins, respectively [56].

Interspecies transmission of avian influenza viruses from aquatic birds to terrestrial poultry is often accompanied by a deletion in the stalk region of the NA and reduced catalytic activity [30, 57]. The observation that the reduced catalytic activity of NA is compensated by mutations in HA resulting in decreased receptor affinity led to the concept that optimal virus replication depends on a balance between receptor binding by HA and receptor destruction by NA [58, 59, 60, 61].

The catalytic site of NA is located in the globular head region (Fig. 1). It is in the center of a propeller-like structure formed by four anti-parallel β-sheets [53]. N-Acetyl-neuraminic acid is bound by hydrogen bonds to amino acids R118, D151, R152, R224, E276, R292, and R371 (N2 numbering). The acetamido group is linked by van der Waals forces to W178 and I222. The amino acids directly interacting with sialic acid are stabilized by contacts with amino acids E119, R156, S179, D/N198, N294, and E425. All of these amino acids are conserved among different NA subtypes.

NAs of avian influenza viruses have, in addition to the catalytic function, the capacity to agglutinate erythrocytes [62, 63, 64]. NAs of human viruses are unable to hemadsorb. The hemadsorption site is a shallow pocket located close by, but separately from to the deep catalytic site (Fig. 1) [65]. It is formed by three amino acid loops, with residues S367, S370, and S372 in the first, N/I400 and W403 in the second, and E/K/Q/N432 in the third loop, directly interacting with the sialic acid moiety. Recently it could be shown that the hemadsorption function enhances the catalytic activity of NA. This study also revealed that the hemadsorption activity of the NAs of early human isolates of the pandemics of 1918 and 1957 was reduced or completely absent. Thus, it appears that loss of the hemadsorption site is the result of an adaptive mutation involved in interspecies transmission from bird to man and has therefore to be considered as a pandemic marker [66].

2.2 Influenza C virus

Influenza C viruses that cause mild respiratory infections in humans differ from other influenza viruses because (1) their preferred sialic acid is N-acetyl-9-O-acetylneuraminic acid (Neu5,9Ac2), (2) their receptor-destroying enzyme is an acetylesterase rather than a neuraminidase, and (3) three functions are combined in one surface glycoprotein, the hemagglutinin-esterase-fusion (HEF) protein: sialic acid binding, esterase and membrane fusion activity as compared to influenza A and B viruses where sialic acid binding and neuraminidase activity are distributed on two glycoproteins, the HA and NA proteins.

The HEF protein is a type I membrane protein of about 80 kDa [67, 68]. It is synthesized as a precursor (HEF0) that is post-translationally cleaved into the subunits HEF1 and HEF2. HEF1 comprises the sialic acid-binding and esterase activity and is connected via disulfide bonds to the membrane-bound HEF2 subunit. Despite little sequence similarity, HEF and HA show surprising structural similarity. The receptor domain of HEF is inserted into a surface loop of the esterase domain and the esterase domain is inserted into a surface loop of the stem which includes the hydrophobic peptide at the aminoterminus of HEF2 that is crucial for the fusion activity [69]. The sialic acid binding site is a cavity at the tip of each HEF1 subunit. The active site of the acetylesterase is located at the base of the globular head region. In the viral spikes HEF is present in homotrimeric form [69] (Fig. 1).

2.2.1 The Esterase Activity of HEF

The receptor-destroying enzyme of influenza C viruses was identified as an acetylesterase that releases the 9-O-acetyl residue from Neu5,9Ac2 [70]. No or little activity was observed when the O-acetyl groups were linked to C-4 or C-7 of sialic acid. The enzyme belongs to the class of serine hydrolases with a catalytic triad formed by residues S57, D352, and H355 [69, 71, 72, 73]. The biological importance of the acetylesterase activity of HEF is believed to be similar to that of the neuraminidase of influenza A virus, i.e., facilitating virus spread by inactivation of potential receptor determinants from the surface of the infected cells and from the viral surface. In the initial stage of the infection cycle, the receptor-destroying enzyme may facilitate virus entry, e.g., by enabling virus to penetrate the mucus layer covering the respiratory epithelium [74]. In the late stage of the growth cycle, inactivation of receptor determinants may promote release of viruses from the infected cell and may prevent the formation of virus aggregates [75]. Supporting evidence has been provided by studies involving enzyme inhibitors, sialic acid analogues, and de- and resialylation experiments [73, 76, 77].

2.2.2 Sialic Acid Binding Activity of HEF

The identification of the receptor-destroying enzyme of influenza C virus as a sialate 9-O-acetylesterase indicated that Neu5,9Ac2 is a receptor determinant for this virus [70]. Formal proof for the importance of 9-O-acetylated sialic acid was provided by desialylation and resialylation of cultured cells which abolished and regenerated agglutination of erythrocytes [78] as well as susceptibility of cultured cells to infection by influenza C virus [79]. The results demonstrated the role of Neu5,9Ac2 for the cell tropism of the virus. As sialic acids are present on many cell surface glycoconjugates, attempts to identify a specific receptor for virus infection have failed so far for influenza A and B viruses. In the case of influenza C virus, overlay binding assays with immobilized membrane proteins indicated that the major interaction partner on the surface of the susceptible cell line MDCK I is gp40, a mucin-type glycoprotein with a high content of O-glycans [80, 81].

Crucial amino acids for substrate binding are residues Y127, T170, and G172 [69]. The specificity for the 9-O-acetyl group is determined by Y224 and R236 that interact with the carbonyl oxygen and by residues W225, W293, and P271 that form a pocket for the methyl group. Interestingly, influenza C virus can adapt to growth in cells with a low content of Neu5,9Ac2. Passage in such cells or establishment of a persistent infection resulted in viruses with increased binding affinity to 9-O-acetylated sialic acids. These mutants or variant viruses had mutations at residues 269, 270, or 272, i.e., next to the above-mentioned P271 [82, 83, 84, 85].

2.3 Isavirus

Infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV) is an important pathogen in farmed Atlantic salmon. Similar to influenza viruses it has a hemagglutinating and a receptor-destroying activity. Unlike influenza A and B viruses, the RDE is not a neuraminidase but an acetylesterase [86]. The enzyme belongs to the class of serine hydrolases [86, 87]. Unlike the HEF protein of influenza C virus, the ISAV esterase releases the 4-O-acetyl group of 4-O-5-N-acetylneuraminic acid (Neu4,5Ac2) [88]. This enzymatic activity corresponds to the preferred ligand of the ISAV hemagglutinin which is also Neu4,5Ac2 [88]. Both the sialic acid binding activity and the acetylesterase activity are functions of the 38–43-kDa surface glycoprotein which has been designated HE protein [89, 90, 91].

3 Coronaviridae

Coronaviruses (order Nidovirales, family Coronaviridae) are a diverse group of viruses that cause enteric, respiratory, and neural infections in both mammalian and avian species. According to a current proposal to the International Committee of Taxonomy of Viruses, they are classified within the subfamily Coronavirinae which comprises four genera: Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Deltacoronavirus. The diversity of coronaviruses is also evident in the sialic acid binding activity. Some members of the Betacoronavirus genus, e.g., bovine coronavirus (BCoV), recognize O-acetylated sialic acids and contain an acetylesterase that functions as a receptor-destroying enzyme. On the other hand, some alpha- and gammacoronaviruses lack a comparable enzyme and have a preference for N-acetyl- or N-glycolylneuraminic acid, the best studied examples being transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) and infectious bronchitis virus (IBV). In addition to the above-mentioned viruses, both alpha- and gammacoronaviruses also include members that lack any sialic acid binding activity, e.g., SARS coronavirus and human coronavirus 229E. In the following, the sialic acid binding activities of BCoV, TGEV, and IBV will be described in more detail.

3.1 Betacoronaviruses

The presence of an acetylesterase in coronaviruses was first described by Vlasak and coworkers who showed that BCoV and HCoV-OC43 eluted from the erythrocytes during the course of a hemagglutination reaction, rendering the cells resistant to subsequent agglutination by either of the two coronaviruses or by influenza C virus. This finding demonstrated that BCoV and HCoV-OC43, similar to influenza C viruses, have a sialate 9-O-acetylesterase that functions as a receptor-destroying enzyme [92].

The acetylesterase activity was assigned to the HE surface glycoprotein of BCoV, hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEF), and mouse-hepatitis virus [93, 94, 95]. The three-dimensional structure of the HE protein of BCoV has been determined showing an esterase site similar to that of the influenza C virus HEF protein [96]. By contrast, the sialic acid binding site of HE differs from that of the HEF protein with the ligand bound in the opposite orientation. An HE gene is present only in members of the Betacoronavirus genus. The different strains of murine coronaviruses contain an HE gene but differ widely in the amount of protein expressed. The acetylesterase of murine coronaviruses has been shown to have a different substrate specificity compared to that of BCoV, HEV, and HCoV-OC43, which release the O-acetyl residue from position C-9 of sialic acids. By contrast, murine coronaviruses – with the exception of the diarrhea virus of infant mice [97] – preferentially hydrolyze the ester linkage of 4-O-acetyl-N-acetylneuraminic acid [98, 99, 100].

The biological role of the acetylesterase of the betacoronaviruses is assumed to be similar to that of the receptor-destroying enzymes of influenza viruses, i.e., it may inactivate binding sites for the virus (1) on the cell surface and thus allow virus release from the infected cell, (2) on mucins covering the respiratory epithelial cells and thus facilitate the penetration of the mucus layer, and (3) on viral surface glycoproteins or glycolipids and thus prevent aggregate formation. Conflicting data have been reported concerning the role of the receptor-destroying enzyme in the initial stage of infection. Inhibition of the acetylesterase by diisopropyl fluorophosphate was shown to reduce the infectivity about a hundredfold in one report, and to have no effect in another report [94, 101].

Following the discovery of an acetylesterase in BCoV and HCoV-OC43 [92] it has been shown that 9-O-acetylated sialic acid serves as a receptor determinant not only for binding to erythrocytes but also for initiating infection of cultured cells [102]. When polarized epithelial cells such as MDCK I cells were analyzed for susceptibility to infection, BCoV was found to infect the cells via the apical but not via the basolateral side of the membrane [103, 104]. The inability of BCoV to infect MDCK I cells via the basolateral plasma membrane may reflect that the major glycoprotein recognized by BCoV, a mucin-like glycoprotein of 40 kDa, is predominantly present in the apical membrane domain [105]. An alternative explanation is that BCoV requires an additional receptor for initiation of infection, which is present only on the apical membrane. Such a secondary receptor has not yet been identified for BCoV.

The HE protein of BCoV has not only acetylesterase activity (see above); it can also function as a hemagglutinin [93, 106, 107]. However, BCoV agglutinates a wider spectrum of erythrocytes than does the isolated HE protein. HE only agglutinates cells that contain a high content of Neu5,9Ac2 such as mouse and rat erythrocytes. Chicken erythrocytes are agglutinated by BCoV and HCoV-OC43, but not by the HE protein. The second surface glycoprotein of BCoV, the S protein, has an important function in virus entry by being involved in the attachment of virions to the cell surface and by mediating the subsequent fusion of the viral and the cell membrane. By contrast to the HE protein, isolated S protein is able to agglutinate chicken erythrocytes [108]. Therefore, the S protein of these viruses is the major hemagglutinin and thus the major sialic acid binding protein. With murine coronaviruses, where the role of O-acetylated sialic acids as an essential receptor determinant has not been demonstrated [109], a sialic acid binding activity could be assigned only to the HE protein, not to the S protein [110].

3.2 Alphacoronaviruses

TGEV is an enteropathogenic virus which may affect pigs of all ages. Infections are especially severe in piglets up to two weeks of age which usually die unless they are protected by maternal antibodies. When Noda and co-workers [111, 112] first described the ability of TGEV to agglutinate erythrocytes, the virus appeared to contain a weak hemagglutinin. This is probably related to the absence of a receptor-destroying enzyme that may remove competitive inhibitors from the viral surface. In fact, when a virus or cells used for virus growth were pre-treated with neuraminidase, the resulting virions were able to agglutinate erythrocytes efficiently. In this way it was shown that the HA-activity of TGEV was due to a sialic acid-binding activity with a preference for α2-3-linked N-glycolylneuraminic acid [104, 113].

The sialic acid binding activity of TGEV is located in the amino-terminal portion of the surface glycoprotein S between amino acids 20 and 244. Evidence is based on the hemagglutination-inhibiting effect of monoclonal antibodies and on the analysis of mutant proteins with one or more amino acid exchanges [104, 113]. Interestingly, all mutants that had lost hemagglutinating activity were strongly reduced in their enteropathogenic effect, indicating that the sialic acid binding activity is an important factor for the enteropathogenicity of TGEV [113, 114, 115].

In virus overlay binding assays with brush border membranes from suckling piglets, TGEV recognized a high molecular mass protein via its sialic acid binding activity [116]. This highly glycosylated protein was designated MGP (mucin-like glycoprotein) as it possesses typical characteristics of a mucin. In in situ binding assays with jejunal cryosections, TGEV bound in a sialic acid-dependent manner to a component that was mainly localized in the goblet cells which are known to synthesize and secrete mucins [116]. From these data it can be concluded that binding to the sialic acids of MGP helps the virus to penetrate the mucus layer and to proceed to the intestinal enterocytes for initiation of infection.

This explanation also applies to an interesting phenomenon related to TGEV. A respiratory variant of TGEV, the porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCoV), was first isolated in Belgium [117] and found to be very similar to TGEV. The major difference was a deletion of 224 amino acids in the N-terminal half of the S protein. Both TGEV and PRCoV use pAPN (porcine aminopeptidase N) as a receptor to infect their host cells [118]. In contrast to TGEV, the S protein of PRCoV displays no hemagglutinating activity as the sialic acid binding site is located in the deleted region of the S protein [104]. PRCoV does not replicate efficiently in the gut [119]. As the S proteins of TGEV and PRCoV share the binding sites for neutralizing antibodies, the spread of PRCoV in European pigs acted like the spread of a vaccine virus, resulting in drastic reduction of TGEV infection. Though PRCoV, similar to TGEV, uses pAPN as a cell surface receptor for entering host cells, PRCoV, unlike TGEV, is not an enteropathogenic virus. As in the case of the mutants mentioned above, the lack of sialic acid binding activity appears to be responsible for the lack of enteropathogenicity.

Though sialic acids are the receptor determinants for the HA activity of TGEV and are crucial for the enteropathogenicity of the virus, the sialic acid binding activity appears to be dispensable for growth of the virus in cell culture. TGEV mutants deficient in sialic acid binding activity grow well in cell culture using pAPN as receptor [113, 115]. However, in binding assays the amount of parental virus attached to sialic acids on the cell surface was increased sixfold compared to mutant virus that was only able to bind to pAPN [120]. Recent results demonstrated that binding to sialic acids is dispensable for infection of cultured cells, when a conventional adsorption time is applied, i.e., 60 min. However, when the adsorption time is reduced to 5 min, infection becomes sialic acid-dependent, as indicated by the effect of pretreatment of cells with neuraminidase, which resulted in a more than 80% reduction of infectivity. This result indicates that the sialic acid binding activity can facilitate infection under unfavorable conditions [121] and therefore may be necessary for infection of the intestine.

3.3 Gammacoronaviruses

Bingham and coworkers [122] reported that some IBV strains were able to agglutinate erythrocytes. Similar to TGEV, IBV requires pretreatment with neuraminidase for efficient hemagglutinating activity. Furthermore, it preferentially recognizes α-2-3-linked sialic acid [123]. Recently, it has been shown that sialic acid is also a crucial receptor-determinant for infection of cells [124]. Pretreatment with neuraminidase was found to result in decreased infectivity as indicated by a reduced number of infected cells and by lower titers of virus released into the supernatant. This finding was obtained with both a lab strain and strains circulating in poultry [124, 125, 126]. The sialic acid-dependence of the IBV infection was observed both with conventional cell cultures and differentiated airway epithelial cells from trachea and lung [126, 127].

3.4 Torovirus

Toroviruses belong to the family Coronaviridae and are classified within the subfamily Torovirinae and the genus Torovirus. They cause mild infections of swine and cattle [6]. Toroviruses contain an HE protein that resembles the HE proteins of betacoronaviruses [128, 129]. Like the coronaviral counterparts, torovirus HE proteins are acetylesterases. The enzyme of bovine torovirus releases the O-acetyl group from position C-9 of sialic acid and accepts as a substrate both Neu5,9Ac2 and N-acetyl-7(8),9-O-acetylneuraminic acid; this specificity resembles those that have been reported for the HEF protein of influenza C virus and for the HE proteins of several coronaviruses [100]. By contrast, the HE protein of porcine torovirus has a narrower specificity, accepting Neu5,9Ac2 but not Neu5,7(8),9Ac3 as a substrate [100]. Analysis of the crystal structure revealed that the torovirus HE proteins have an esterase domain similar to those of the coronavirus HE and influenza C virus HEF proteins [130]; on the other hand, the sialic acid binding site is unique. The difference in substrate specificity is explained by a single amino acid, Thr73 in the porcine and Ser64 in the bovine HE protein [130].

4 Paramyxoviridae

The Paramyxoviridae family that is divided into two subfamilies and seven genera comprises a large group of enveloped viruses with non-segmented single-stranded RNA genomes of negative polarity. The members of the genera Respirovirus, Rubulavirus, and Avulavirus are viruses that share binding to sialic acid-containing cell receptors as a common feature. They include several major pathogens for man (human parainfluenza viruses (HPIV) 1-4, mumps virus) and animals (Newcastle disease virus (NDV)) as well as Sendai virus that became an important tool in genetic engineering because of its capacities as a membrane fusing agent and a gene vector.

Receptor interaction of these viruses is mediated by the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) glycoprotein, a type II integral membrane protein with an N-terminal cytoplasmic tail, a transmembrane domain, a membrane-proximal stalk domain, and a large C-terminal globular head domain that contains the sites responsible for hemagglutinating and neuraminidase activities. HN forms tetramers that are present as spikes on the surface of the virus particles (see [131]).

HN is believed not only to initiate infection by receptor binding but also to prevent aggregation and to promote release of mature virions by receptor removal. X-Ray crystallographic analysis of the HN glycoprotein of NDV [132], HPIV3 [133], and SV5 [134] has revealed a typical neuraminidase fold consisting of six antiparallel β strands organized as a super barrel with a centrally located active site located at the tip of the globular head domain. This exerts both the receptor binding and the catalytic function. A second sialic binding site has been observed on HN of NDV, the biological function of which, however, has not been clearly established yet [132]. HPIV1 HN also has a second binding site, but it is accessible only after removal of a nearby carbohydrate side chain [135].

The receptor specificity of Sendai virus was first analyzed in studies employing gangliosides [136, 137] and erythrocytes that contained defined sialyloligosaccharides after neuraminidase and subsequent sialyltransferase treatment [138]. These studies showed that Sendai virus has a preference for α2-3-bound N-acetylneuraminic acid. This receptor determinant appears to be present on both glycoproteins and gangliosides [139, 140]. HPIV1 also recognizes α2-3 linkages, whereas HPIV3 has α2-6 specificity [141].

5 Caliciviridae

Caliciviruses are small non-enveloped viruses that contain a single-stranded plus-sense RNA genome encapsidated by an icosahedral protein shell. The major capsid protein VP1 has a shell (S) domain and a protruding (P) domain [142, 143]. The P domain which forms arch-like structures on the virion surface is further subdivided into subdomains P1 and P2. P2 is the most variable region and contains carbohydrate binding motifs [144, 145, 146, 147, 148].

Caliciviruses which occur in a large variety of different hosts are subdivided into several genera, including the genus Norovirus. Human noroviruses are responsible for the majority of acute viral gastroenteritis. Although these infections are usually mild they can be a serious threat to the elderly and the immuno-compromised. Murine noroviruses share pathogenic properties with human noroviruses as they are enteric viruses that replicate in the intestine and are shed in feces [149].

Whereas most human noroviruses bind to non-charged histo-blood group antigens [150, 151, 152] or to heparan sulfate [153], some recognize sialyl-Lewis X neoglycoproteins. Binding to the sialyl-Lewis X group is strictly sialic acid-dependent, since a non-sialylated control glycan does not bind [154]. While the tropism of human norovirus remains unknown, murine noroviruses efficiently replicate in murine macrophages and dentritic cells [149]. Virus binding to the macrophage surface is partially neuraminidase-sensitive and ganglioside-dependent [155]. Murine macrophages express gangliosides GD1a and GM1, and murine norovirus binds to GD1a, but not to GM1, suggesting that the minimal binding epitope is the terminal sialic acid found in GD1a [148]. Only in a few other instances has sialic acid been identified as a calicivirus receptor. Thus, a feline calicivirus strain attaches to α2-6-linked sialic acid on N-glycans [156].

6 Picornaviridae

Among the Picornaviridae, a large family of non-segmented positive-stranded RNA viruses comprising many animal and human pathogens, the use of sialic acid as a receptor component has been described for encephalomyocarditis virus [157], Theiler’s murine encephalomyelitis virus (TMEV) [158], mengovirus [159], and bovine enterovirus 261 [160]. A human enterovirus also attaches to sialic acid, with a strong preference for O-linked glycans containing sialic acid α2-3-linked to galactose [161]. Differences in receptor specificity appear to be virulence markers of TMEV. While strains with high neurovirulence bind to heparan sulfate, low neurovirulence strains bind to α2-3-linked sialic acid moieties on N-glycans [162]. Crystallographic studies revealed a positively charged area on the viral surface in contact with sialic acid through non-covalent hydrogen bonds to be important for the persistent infection of the non-neurovirulent strain [158].

7 Reoviridae

These viruses have a segmented double-stranded RNA genome that is encapsidated by one, two, or three protein layers. The icosahedral virions are not enveloped and have a diameter of about 80 nm. There are 12 genera in the virus family. Binding to sialic acid has been observed with many members of the Rotavirus genus (for references see below), and some viruses belonging to serotypes 1 and 3 of the Orthoreovirus genus [163] also recognize such receptors.

Orthoreoviruses occur with a variety of vertebrates. Infection in humans is generally benign, but may cause upper respiratory tract illness and possibly enteritis in infants and children. Infection is initiated by receptor binding of the sigma 1 protein located in the outer layer of the viral capsid. Sigma 1 forms trimers and is composed of a fibrous tail containing the sialic acid-binding site and a globular head domain that interacts with junctional adhesion molecule 1 (JAM-1) serving as a secondary receptor [164, 165]. The ability of the sigma 1 protein to bind to sialic acid depends on a point mutation (L204P) at the binding site that converts a sialic acid-negative into a sialic acid-positive binding phenotype [164]. Interaction with sialic acid appears to precede binding to JAM-1 and to be necessary for endocytosis of the virus [166].

Rotaviruses infect a wide range of avian and human species and they are the major cause of gastroenteritis in children. Virions possess an outer VP7 layer and large “spikes” or “turrets” at the 12 icosahedral vertices composed of VP4. Trypsin cleaves the C-terminal from the N-terminal domain of VP4, giving rise to VP5 and VP8, respectively, both of which remain associated with the virion. X-Ray crystallography and NMR spectroscopy of VP8 alone and complexed with 2-0-methyl-α-d-N-acetyl neuraminic acid revealed that the VP8 core is a globular domain of an 11-stranded anti-parallel β-sandwich with the sialic acid binding site located in an open-ended, shallow groove [167, 168]. The concept that rotaviruses attach to sialic acid is supported by the observation that binding of some strains to cells is abolished by neuraminidase treatment [169, 170]. In contrast, binding of many other strains is neuraminidase insensitive [171], but it is now clear that these viruses also use sialic acid, yet in a form resistant to neuraminidase treatment [172, 173]. Comparison of the crystal structures of VP8 of neuraminidase-sensitive and neuraminidase-insensitive strains revealed that they were very similar, differing only by the size of the sialic acid binding groove that was slightly wider with the neuraminidase-insensitive strain [174].

The following steps are believed to be involved in the cell entry of rotaviruses: The VP8 domain of VP4 binds first to sialic acid residues of gangliosides or glycoproteins resulting in a conformational change of VP4 that exposes VP5. The VP5 domain then interacts with α2β1 integrin. Finally, several additional interactions take place, involving VP5, VP7, integrins αvβ3 and αxβ2, and probably other cellular proteins [175]. Compatible with this concept is the observation that rotavirus binding to sialic acid is characterized by broad specificity and low affinity, suggesting that it mediates initial cell attachment prior to other interactions that determine host range and cell type specificity [176].

Different gangliosides have been found to be involved in rotavirus entry, and the results of these studies have recently been reviewed in detail [10]. Briefly, porcine rotaviruses have GM3 [177] and GD1a [173] receptors. Simian rotavirus 11 binds to GM3, GM2, and GD1a [178, 179]; GM3 containing both N-acetyl- and N-glycolyl-neuraminic acid may represent the receptors of bovine rotaviruses [178]. Human rotavirus bound to GM1 [173, 180].

8 Polyomaviridae

Polyomaviruses are DNA-tumor viruses. Most of them have oncogenic potential in rodents and non-human primates, and murine polyomavirus (MPyV) and simian polyomavirus 40 (SV40) have been widely used in experimental oncology. In immunocompromised patients, the human polyomaviruses JCPyV and BKPyV cause progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy, a fatal demyelinating disease, and nephropathy, respectively. The recently discovered Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) is the causative agent of an aggressive form of human skin cancer. Polyomaviruses are small non-enveloped viruses containing a double-stranded DNA genome. VP1 is the major viral protein. It forms the outer capsid shell of the icosahedral virions and carries the receptor binding site [181, 182, 183, 184].

Paulson and his group were the first to show that MPyV utilizes sialic acid as receptor. Employing reconstituted erythrocytes with defined sialic acid moieties they found that some strains specifically bound to α2-3-linked sialic acid, whereas others also recognized branched α2-6-linkages [185, 186, 187]. More recently, gangliosides GD1a and GT1b were identified as receptors in sucrose gradient floatation assays [188]. Crystallographic analysis has shown that a shallow groove composed of several loops of VP1 serves as the sialic acid binding site [184, 189]. The structural analysis also showed that the receptor pocket specifically accommodates a Neu5Acα2-3-Gal motif unbranched at the Gal position [183] which is compatible with the data obtained in the binding studies employing erythrocytes [186] and gangliosides [188]. MPyV also uses α4β1 integrin as receptor [190] which appears to be mediated by an LDV integrin binding groove deep within VP1. This suggests that, after attachment to sialic acid, the virus has to undergo a conformational change that allows binding to integrin as a second step in the entry process [8]. Evidence has also been obtained that binding to gangliosides promotes virus entry via caveolin-mediated endocytosis [191, 192].

SV40 also binds to gangliosides, but it differs in its receptor specificity from MPyV by showing a specific requirement for GM1 [188]. Crystallographic analysis has revealed that both the Galβ1-3GalNAc and Neu5Ac branches provide binding activity by directly contacting the protein [182]. Receptor binding of African green monkey lymphotropic papovavirus (LPV), another primate polyomavirus, has been shown to be neuraminidase sensitive, and it has been suggested that the sialic acid necessary for the receptor function is located on a mucin-type glycoprotein or on a ganglioside [193].

Knowledge on the receptors of the human polyomaviruses is less detailed. JCPyV binds to α2-3- and α2-6-linked sialic acid [194, 195], and there is some evidence that ganglioside GT1b is involved in the infection of human neuroblastoma cells [196]. Infection of glial cells depends on the serotonin receptor 5HT2a, and this receptor function appears to be neuraminidase sensitive [195, 197]. BkPyV binds only to α2-3-linked sialic acid [198], and floatation assays have shown that gangliosides GD1b and GT1b serve as receptors [199]. GT1b was also identified as a receptor of MCPyV, and the observation that GD1a and GD1b did not show this function suggests that both the α2-3-linked and the α2-8-linked sialic acid of GT1b are required [200].

9 Adenoviridae

This family contains non-enveloped DNA viruses that bind to their receptors via interactions with the distal knob of the penton fibers attached to the vertices of the icosahedral virions. Human adenoviruses mainly cause respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. Several adenoviruses also infect the eye where the most important disease is epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC), caused primarily by Ad8, Ad19, and Ad37. Ad37 binds preferentially to α2-3-linked sialic acid which is the most frequent type of sialic acid linkage in corneal and conjunctival cells [201]. The crystal structure of the Ad37 knob–sialic acid complex has been elucidated [202].

10 Parvoviridae

This family contains small icosahedral viruses with a single-stranded DNA genome that is encapsidated by a shell composed of two or three proteins. The Parvoviridae family is subdivided into two subfamilies (Parvovirinae and Densovirinae) comprising a total of nine genera, two of which contain viruses that recognize sialic acid receptors. These are the minute virus of mice in the Parvovirus genus and some adeno associated viruses (AAVs) in the Densovirus genus. AAVs are non-pathogenic agents that depend on adenoviruses for replication. Because of their inability to induce productive infection in the absence of a helper virus, AAVs are promising vectors in gene therapy.

Bovine AAV has been shown to depend on gangliosides for entry [203], and binding to α2-3-linked sialic acid has been reported for AAV type 5, whereas AAV4 appears to bind to α2-6-linked sialic acid [204]. It has also been suggested that sialic acid serves not just as an attachment factor but is also required for virus internalization [205]. On the whole, however, the role of sialic acid in the AAV infection process is still poorly understood.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Our own recent studies were supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 587, SFB 593, SFB 621 and SFB 1021), the Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, FluResearchNet), the Von Behring-Roentgen-Stiftung, the LOEWE Program of the State of Hessen (Universities of Giessen and Marburg Lung Center), the Wellcome Trust grant WT085572MF, and the European Commission FP7 projects FLUPIG and PREDEMICS.

References

  1. 1.
    Hirst GK (1941) The agglutination of red cells by allantoic fluid of chick embryos infected with influenza virus. Science 94:22–23Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McClelland L, Hare R (1941) The adsorption of influenza virus by red cells and a new in vitro method of measuring antibodies for influenza virus. Can J Public Health 32:530–538Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burnet FM, Stone JD (1947) The receptor-destroying enzyme of V. cholerae. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci 25:227–233Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gottschalk A, Lind PE (1949) Product of interaction between influenza virus enzyme and ovomucin. Nature 164:232Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klenk E, Faillard H, Lempfrid H (1955) Über die enzymatische Wirkung von Influenza Virus. Z physiol Chem 301:235–246Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Groot RJ (2006) Structure, function and evolution of the hemagglutinin-esterase proteins of corona- and toroviruses. Glycoconj J 23:59–72Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lehmann F, Tiralongo E, Tiralongo J (2006) Sialic acid-specific lectins: occurrence, specificity and function. Cell Mol Life Sci 63:1331–1354Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neu U, Stehle T, Atwood WJ (2009) The Polyomaviridae: contributions of virus structure to our understanding of virus receptors and infectious entry. Virology 384:389–399Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Olofsson S, Bergstrom T (2005) Glycoconjugate glycans as viral receptors. Ann Med 37:154–172Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taube S, Jiang M, Wobus CE (2010) Glycosphingolipids as receptors for non-enveloped viruses. Viruses 2:1011–1049Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCauley JW, Hongo S, Kaverin NV, Kochs G, Lamb RA, Matrosovich MN, Perez DR, Palese P, Presti RM, Rimstadt E et al. (2011) Orthomyxoviridae. In: King AMQ, Adams MJ, Carstens EB, Lefkowitz EJ (eds) Virus taxonomy. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 749–762Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palese P, Shaw ML (2007) Orthomyxoviridae: the viruses and their replication. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM (eds) Fields virology. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1647–1689Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tong S, Li Y, Rivailler P, Conrardy C, Castillo DA, Chen LM, Recuenco S, Ellison JA, Davis CT, York IA et al. (2012) A distinct lineage of influenza A virus from bats. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:4269–4274Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klenk HD (2011) Influenza virology. In: von Itzstein M (ed) Influenza virus sialidase – a drug discovery target. Springer, Basel, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gamblin SJ, Skehel JJ (2010) Influenza hemagglutinin and neuraminidase membrane glycoproteins. J Biol Chem 285:28403–28409Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Skehel JJ, Wiley DC (2000) Receptor binding and membrane fusion in virus entry: the influenza hemagglutinin. Annu Rev Biochem 69:531–569Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matrosovich MN, Klenk H-D, Kawaoka Y (2006) Receptor specificity, host range and pathogenicity of influenza viruses. In: Kawaoka Y (ed) Influenza virology: current topics. Caister Academic, Wymondham, pp 95–137Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Connor RJ, Kawaoka Y, Webster RG, Paulson JC (1994) Receptor specificity in human, avian, and equine H2 and H3 influenza virus isolates. Virology 205:17–23Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matrosovich M, Tuzikov A, Bovin N, Gambarian A, Klimov A, Cox N, Castrucci M, Donatelli I, Kawaoka Y (2000) Alterations of receptor-binding properties of H1, H2 and H3 avian influenza virus hemagglutinins upon introduction into mammals. J Virol 74:8502–8512Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rogers GN, Paulson JC (1983) Receptor determinants of human and animal influenza virus isolates: differences in receptor specificity of the H3 hemagglutinin based on species of origin. Virology 127:361–373Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baum LG, Paulson JC (1990) Sialyloligosaccharides of the respiratory epithelium in the selection of human influenza virus receptor specificity. Acta Histochem Suppl 40:35–38Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gambaryan A, Webster R, Matrosovich M (2002) Differences between influenza virus receptors on target cells of duck and chicken. Arch Virol 147:1197–1208Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ito T, Couceiro JN, Kelm S, Baum LG, Krauss S, Castrucci MR, Donatelli I, Kida H, Paulson JC, Webster RG et al. (1998) Molecular basis for the generation in pigs of influenza A viruses with pandemic potential. J Virol 72:7367–7373Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuchipudi SV, Nelli R, White GA, Bain M, Chang KC, Dunham S (2009) Differences in influenza virus receptors in chickens and ducks: implications for interspecies transmission. J Mol Genet Med 3:143–151Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pillai SP, Lee CW (2010) Species and age related differences in the type and distribution of influenza virus receptors in different tissues of chickens, ducks and turkeys. Virol J 7:5Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shinya K, Ebina M, Yamada S, Ono M, Kasai N, Kawaoka Y (2006) Avian flu: influenza virus receptors in the human airway. Nature 440:435–436Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matrosovich M, Stech J, Klenk HD (2009) Influenza receptors, polymerase and host range. Rev Sci Tech 28:203–217Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matrosovich MN, Gambarian AS, Klenk HD (2008) Receptor specificity of influenza viruses and its alteration during interspecies transmission. In: Klenk HD, Matrosovich MN, Stech J (eds) Avian Influenza. Karger, Basel, pp 134–155Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gambaryan A, Tuzikov A, Pazynina G, Bovin N, Balish A, Klimov A (2006) Evolution of the receptor binding phenotype of influenza A (H5) viruses. Virology 344:432–438Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matrosovich M, Zhou N, Kawaoka Y, Webster R (1999) The surface glycoproteins of H5 influenza viruses isolated from humans, chickens, and wild aquatic birds have distinguishable properties. J Virol 73:1146–1155Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stevens J, Blixt O, Tumpey TM, Taubenberger JK, Paulson JC, Wilson IA (2006) Structure and receptor specificity of the hemagglutinin from an H5N1 influenza virus. Science 312:404–410Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Matrosovich MN, Matrosovich TY, Gray T, Roberts NA, Klenk HD (2004) Human and avian influenza viruses target different cell types in cultures of human airway epithelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:4620–4624Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nicholls JM, Chan MC, Chan WY, Wong HK, Cheung CY, Kwong DL, Wong MP, Chui WH, Poon LL, Tsao SW et al. (2007) Tropism of avian influenza A (H5N1) in the upper and lower respiratory tract. Nat Med 13:147–149Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Riel D, Munster VJ, de Wit E, Rimmelzwaan GF, Fouchier RA, Osterhaus AD, Kuiken T (2006) H5N1 virus attachment to lower respiratory tract. Science 312:399Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Riel D, Munster VJ, de Wit E, Rimmelzwaan GF, Fouchier RA, Osterhaus AD, Kuiken T (2007) Human and avian influenza viruses target different cells in the lower respiratory tract of humans and other mammals. Am J Pathol 171:1215–1223Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yao L, Korteweg C, Hsueh W, Gu J (2007) Avian influenza receptor expression in H5N1-infected and noninfected human tissues. FASEB J. doi: 10.1096/fj.1006-7880com Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Herfst S, Schrauwen EJ, Linster M, Chutinimitkul S, de Wit E, Munster VJ, Sorrell EM, Bestebroer TM, Burke DF, Smith DJ et al. (2012) Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science 336:1534–1541Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Imai M, Watanabe T, Hatta M, Das SC, Ozawa M, Shinya K, Zhong G, Hanson A, Katsura H, Watanabe S et al. (2012) Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature 486:420–428Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scholtissek C, Hinshaw VS, Olsen CW (1998) Influenza in pigs and their role as the intermediate host. In: Nicholson KG, Webster RG, Hay A (eds) Textbook of influenza. Blackwell Science, London, pp 137–145Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gambaryan AS, Karasin AI, Tuzikov AB, Chinarev AA, Pazynina GV, Bovin NV, Matrosovich MN, Olsen CW, Klimov AI (2005) Receptor-binding properties of swine influenza viruses isolated and propagated in MDCK cells. Virus Res 114:15–22Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Poucke SG, Nicholls JM, Nauwynck HJ, Van Reeth K (2010) Replication of avian, human and swine influenza viruses in porcine respiratory explants and association with sialic acid distribution. Virol J 7:38Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bradley KC, Jones CA, Tompkins SM, Tripp RA, Russell RJ, Gramer MR, Heimburg-Molinaro J, Smith DF, Cummings RD, Steinhauer DA (2011) Comparison of the receptor binding properties of contemporary swine isolates and early human pandemic H1N1 isolates (Novel 2009 H1N1). Virology 413:169–182Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chen LM, Rivailler P, Hossain J, Carney P, Balish A, Perry I, Davis CT, Garten R, Shu B, Xu X et al. (2011) Receptor specificity of subtype H1 influenza A viruses isolated from swine and humans in the United States. Virology 412:401–410Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maines TR, Jayaraman A, Belser JA, Wadford DA, Pappas C, Zeng H, Gustin KM, Pearce MB, Viswanathan K, Shriver ZH et al. (2009) Transmission and pathogenesis of swine-origin 2009 A(H1N1) influenza viruses in ferrets and mice. Science 325:484–487Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yang H, Carney P, Stevens J (2010) Structure and receptor binding properties of a pandemic H1N1 virus hemagglutinin. PLoS Curr 2. doi: 10.1371/currents.RRN1152
  46. 46.
    Childs RA, Palma AS, Wharton S, Matrosovich T, Liu Y, Chai W, Campanero-Rhodes MA, Zhang Y, Eickmann M, Kiso M et al. (2009) Receptor-binding specificity of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus determined by carbohydrate microarray. Nat Biotechnol 27:797–799Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kilander A, Rykkvin R, Dudman SG, Hungnes O (2010) Observed association between the HA1 mutation D222G in the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus and severe clinical outcome, Norway 2009–2010. Euro Surveill 15(9):pii=19498Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Puzelli S, Facchini M, De Marco MA, Palmieri A, Spagnolo D, Boros S, Corcioli F, Trotta D, Bagnarelli P, Azzi A, Cassone A, Rezza G, Pompa MG, Oleari F, Donatelli I, the Influnet Surveillance Group for Pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 Influenza Virus in Italy (2010) Molecular surveillance of pandemic influenza A(H1N1) viruses circulating in Italy from May 2009 to February 2010: association between haemagglutinin mutations and clinical outcome. Euro Surveill 15(43):pii=19696Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liu Y, Childs RA, Matrosovich T, Wharton S, Palma AS, Chai W, Daniels R, Gregory V, Uhlendorff J, Kiso M et al. (2010) Altered receptor specificity and cell tropism of D222G hemagglutinin mutants isolated from fatal cases of pandemic A(H1N1) 2009 influenza virus. J Virol 84:12069–12074Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chutinimitkul S, Herfst S, Steel J, Lowen AC, Ye J, van Riel D, Schrauwen EJ, Bestebroer TM, Koel B, Burke DF et al. (2010) Virulence-associated substitution D222G in the hemagglutinin of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus affects receptor binding. J Virol 84:11802–11813Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Matrosovich MN, Gambaryan AS, Teneberg S, Piskarev VE, Yamnikova SS, Lvov DK, Robertson JS, Karlsson KA (1997) Avian influenza A viruses differ from human viruses by recognition of sialyloligosaccharides and gangliosides and by a higher conservation of the HA receptor-binding site. Virology 233:224–234Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nicholls JM, Chan RW, Russell RJ, Air GM, Peiris JS (2008) Evolving complexities of influenza virus and its receptors. Trends Microbiol 16:149–157Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Varghese JN, Laver WG, Colman PM (1983) Structure of the influenza virus glycoprotein antigen neuraminidase at 2.9 A resolution. Nature 303:35–40Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Blok J, Air GM (1982) Block deletions in the neuraminidase genes from some influenza A viruses of the N1 subtype. Virology 118:229–234Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Matrosovich MN, Matrosovich TY, Gray T, Roberts NA, Klenk HD (2004) Neuraminidase is important for the initiation of influenza virus infection in human airway epithelium. J Virol 78:12665–12667Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Palese P, Tobita K, Ueda M, Compans RW (1974) Characterization of temperature sensitive influenza virus mutants defective in neuraminidase. Virology 61:397–410Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Banks J, Speidel ES, Moore E, Plowright L, Piccirillo A, Capua I, Cordioli P, Fioretti A, Alexander DJ (2001) Changes in the haemagglutinin and the neuraminidase genes prior to the emergence of highly pathogenic H7N1 avian influenza viruses in Italy. Arch Virol 146:963–973Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kaverin NV, Gambaryan AS, Bovin NV, Rudneva IA, Shilov AA, Khodova OM, Varich NL, Sinitsin BV, Makarova NV, Kropotkina EA (1998) Postreassortment changes in influenza A virus hemagglutinin restoring HA-NA functional match. Virology 244:315–321Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mitnaul LJ, Matrosovich MN, Castrucci MR, Tuzikov AB, Bovin NV, Kobasa D, Kawaoka Y (2000) Balanced hemagglutinin and neuraminidase activities are critical for efficient replication of influenza A virus. J Virol 74:6015–6020Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wagner R, Matrosovich M, Klenk HD (2002) Functional balance between haemagglutinin and neuraminidase in influenza virus infections. Rev Med Virol 12:159–166Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wagner R, Wolff T, Herwig A, Pleschka S, Klenk HD (2000) Interdependence of hemagglutinin glycosylation and neuraminidase as regulators of influenza virus growth: a study by reverse genetics. J Virol 74:6316–6323Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hausmann J, Kretzschmar E, Garten W, Klenk HD (1995) N1 neuraminidase of influenza virus A/FPV/Rostock/34 has haemadsorbing activity. J Gen Virol 76(Pt 7):1719–1728Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kobasa D, Rodgers ME, Wells K, Kawaoka Y (1997) Neuraminidase hemadsorption activity, conserved in avian influenza A viruses, does not influence viral replication in ducks. J Virol 71:6706–6713Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Laver WG, Colman PM, Webster RG, Hinshaw VS, Air GM (1984) Influenza virus neuraminidase with hemagglutinin activity. Virology 137:314–323Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Varghese JN, Colman PM, van Donkelaar A, Blick TJ, Sahasrabudhe A, McKimm-Breschkin JL (1997) Structural evidence for a second sialic acid binding site in avian influenza virus neuraminidases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:11808–11812Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Uhlendorff J, Matrosovich T, Klenk HD, Matrosovich M (2009) Functional significance of the hemadsorption activity of influenza virus neuraminidase and its alteration in pandemic viruses. Arch Virol 154:945–957Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Herrler G, Hausmann J, Klenk HD (1995) Sialic acid as receptor determinant of ortho- and paramyxoviruses. In: Rosenberg A (ed) Biology of the Sialic acids. Plenum, New York, pp 315–336Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Herrler G, Klenk HD (1991) Structure and function of the HEF glycoprotein of influenza C virus. Adv Virus Res 40:213–234Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rosenthal PB, Zhang X, Formanowski F, Fitz W, Wong CH, Meier-Ewert H, Skehel JJ, Wiley DC (1998) Structure of the haemagglutinin-esterase-fusion glycoprotein of influenza C virus. Nature 396:92–96Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Herrler G, Rott R, Klenk HD, Muller HP, Shukla AK, Schauer R (1985) The receptor-destroying enzyme of influenza C virus is neuraminate-O-acetylesterase. EMBO J 4:1503–1506Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Herrler G, Multhaup G, Beyreuther K, Klenk HD (1988) Serine 71 of the glycoprotein HEF is located at the active site of the acetylesterase of influenza C virus. Arch Virol 102:269–274Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pleschka S, Klenk HD, Herrler G (1995) The catalytic triad of the influenza C virus glycoprotein HEF esterase: characterization by site-directed mutagenesis and functional analysis. J Gen Virol 76:2529–2537Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Vlasak R, Muster T, Lauro AM, Powers JC, Palese P (1989) Influenza C virus esterase: analysis of catalytic site, inhibition, and possible function. J Virol 63:2056–2062Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hofling K, Klenk HD, Herrler G (1997) Inactivation of inhibitors by the receptor-destroying enzyme of influenza C virus. J Gen Virol 78:567–570Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hofling K, Brossmer R, Klenk H, Herrler G (1996) Transfer of an esterase-resistant receptor analog to the surface of influenza C virions results in reduced infectivity due to aggregate formation. Virology 218:127–133Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Herrler G, Gross HJ, Brossmer R (1995) A synthetic sialic acid analog that is resistant to the receptor-destroying enzyme can be used by influenza C virus as a receptor determinant for infection of cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 216:821–827Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Herrler G, Gross HJ, Imhof A, Brossmer R, Milks G, Paulson JC (1992) A synthetic sialic acid analogue is recognized by influenza C virus as a receptor determinant but is resistant to the receptor-destroying enzyme. J Biol Chem 267:12501–12505Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rogers GN, Herrler G, Paulson JC, Klenk HD (1986) Influenza C virus uses 9-O-acetyl-N-acetylneuraminic acid as a high affinity receptor determinant for attachment to cells. J Biol Chem 261:5947–5951Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Herrler G, Klenk HD (1987) The surface receptor is a major determinant of the cell tropism of influenza C virus. Virology 159:102–108Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zimmer G, Klenk HD, Herrler G (1995) Identification of a 40-kDa cell surface sialoglycoprotein with the characteristics of a major influenza C virus receptor in a Madin–Darby canine kidney cell line. J Biol Chem 270:17815–17822Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Zimmer G, Lottspeich F, Maisner A, Klenk HD, Herrler G (1997) Molecular characterization of gp40, a mucin-type glycoprotein from the apical plasma membrane of Madin–Darby canine kidney cells (type I). Biochem J 326:99–108Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Marschall M, Herrler G, Boswald C, Foerst G, Meier-Ewert H (1994) Persistent influenza C virus possesses distinct functional properties due to a modified HEF glycoprotein. J Gen Virol 75:2189–2196Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Matsuzaki M, Sugawara K, Adachi K, Hongo S, Nishimura H, Kitame F, Nakamura K (1992) Location of neutralizing epitopes on the hemagglutinin-esterase protein of influenza C virus. Virology 189:79–87Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Szepanski S, Gross HJ, Brossmer R, Klenk HD, Herrler G (1992) A single point mutation of the influenza C virus glycoprotein (HEF) changes the viral receptor-binding activity. Virology 188:85–92Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Umetsu Y, Sugawara K, Nishimura H, Hongo S, Matsuzaki M, Kitame F, Nakamura K (1992) Selection of antigenically distinct variants of influenza C viruses by the host cell. Virology 189:740–744Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Falk K, Namork E, Rimstad E, Mjaaland S, Dannevig BH (1997) Characterization of infectious salmon anemia virus, an orthomyxo-like virus isolated from Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). J Virol 71:9016–9023Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kristiansen M, Froystad MK, Rishovd AL, Gjoen T (2002) Characterization of the receptor-destroying enzyme activity from infectious salmon anaemia virus. J Gen Virol 83:2693–2697Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hellebo A, Vilas U, Falk K, Vlasak R (2004) Infectious salmon anemia virus specifically binds to and hydrolyzes 4-O-acetylated sialic acids. J Virol 78:3055–3062Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Falk K, Aspehaug V, Vlasak R, Endresen C (2004) Identification and characterization of viral structural proteins of infectious salmon anemia virus. J Virol 78:3063–3071Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Krossoy B, Devold M, Sanders L, Knappskog PM, Aspehaug V, Falk K, Nylund A, Koumans S, Endresen C, Biering E (2001) Cloning and identification of the infectious salmon anaemia virus haemagglutinin. J Gen Virol 82:1757–1765Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rimstad E, Mjaaland S, Snow M, Mikalsen AB, Cunningham CO (2001) Characterization of the infectious salmon anemia virus genomic segment that encodes the putative hemagglutinin. J Virol 75:5352–5356Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Vlasak R, Luytjes W, Spaan W, Palese P (1988) Human and bovine coronaviruses recognize sialic acid-containing receptors similar to those of influenza C viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 85:4526–4529Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Schultze B, Wahn K, Klenk HD, Herrler G (1991) Isolated HE-protein from hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus and bovine coronavirus has receptor-destroying and receptor-binding activity. Virology 180:221–228Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Vlasak R, Luytjes W, Leider J, Spaan W, Palese P (1988) The E3 protein of bovine coronavirus is a receptor-destroying enzyme with acetylesterase activity. J Virol 62:4686–4690Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Yokomori K, La Monica N, Makino S, Shieh CK, Lai MM (1989) Biosynthesis, structure, and biological activities of envelope protein gp65 of murine coronavirus. Virology 173:683–691Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Zeng Q, Langereis MA, van Vliet AL, Huizinga EG, de Groot RJ (2008) Structure of coronavirus hemagglutinin-esterase offers insight into corona and influenza virus evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:9065–9069Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sugiyama K, Kasai M, Kato S, Kasai H, Hatakeyama K (1998) Haemagglutinin-esterase protein (HE) of murine corona virus: DVIM (diarrhea virus of infant mice). Arch Virol 143:1523–1534Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Klausegger A, Strobl B, Regl G, Kaser A, Luytjes W, Vlasak R (1999) Identification of a coronavirus hemagglutinin-esterase with a substrate specificity different from those of influenza C virus and bovine coronavirus. J Virol 73:3737–3743Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Regl G, Kaser A, Iwersen M, Schmid H, Kohla G, Strobl B, Vilas U, Schauer R, Vlasak R (1999) The hemagglutinin-esterase of mouse hepatitis virus strain S is a sialate-4-O-acetylesterase. J Virol 73:4721–4727Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Smits SL, Gerwig GJ, van Vliet AL, Lissenberg A, Briza P, Kamerling JP, Vlasak R, de Groot RJ (2005) Nidovirus sialate-O-acetylesterases: evolution and substrate specificity of coronaviral and toroviral receptor-destroying enzymes. J Biol Chem 280:6933–6941Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Storz J, Zhang XM, Rott R (1992) Comparison of hemagglutinating, receptor-destroying, and acetylesterase activities of avirulent and virulent bovine coronavirus strains. Arch Virol 125:193–204Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Schultze B, Herrler G (1992) Bovine coronavirus uses N-acetyl-9-O-acetylneuraminic acid as a receptor determinant to initiate the infection of cultured cells. J Gen Virol 73:901–906Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Lin X, O'Reilly KL, Storz J (1997) Infection of polarized epithelial cells with enteric and respiratory tract bovine coronaviruses and release of virus progeny. Am J Vet Res 58:1120–1124Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Schultze B, Krempl C, Ballesteros ML, Shaw L, Schauer R, Enjuanes L, Herrler G (1996) Transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus, but not the related porcine respiratory coronavirus, has a sialic acid (N-glycolylneuraminic acid) binding activity. J Virol 70:5634–5637Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Schultze B, Zimmer G, Herrler G (1996) Virus entry into a polarized epithelial cell line (MDCK): similarities and dissimilarities between influenza C virus and bovine coronavirus. J Gen Virol 77(Pt 10):2507–2514Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    King B, Potts BJ, Brian DA (1985) Bovine coronavirus hemagglutinin protein. Virus Res 2:53–59Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Yoo D, Graham FL, Prevec L, Parker MD, Benko M, Zamb T, Babiuk LA (1992) Synthesis and processing of the haemagglutinin-esterase glycoprotein of bovine coronavirus encoded in the E3 region of adenovirus. J Gen Virol 73:2591–2600Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Schultze B, Gross HJ, Brossmer R, Herrler G (1991) The S protein of bovine coronavirus is a hemagglutinin recognizing 9-O-acetylated sialic acid as a receptor determinant. J Virol 65:6232–6237Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Gagneten S, Gout O, Dubois-Dalcq M, Rottier P, Rossen J, Holmes KV (1995) Interaction of mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) spike glycoprotein with receptor glycoprotein MHVR is required for infection with an MHV strain that expresses the hemagglutinin-esterase glycoprotein. J Virol 69:889–895Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Langereis MA, van Vliet AL, Boot W, de Groot RJ (2010) Attachment of mouse hepatitis virus to O-acetylated sialic acid is mediated by hemagglutinin-esterase and not by the spike protein. J Virol 84:8970–8974Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Noda M, Koide F, Asagi M, Inaba Y (1988) Physicochemical properties of transmissible gastroenteritis virus hemagglutinin. Arch Virol 99:163–172Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Noda M, Yamashita H, Koide F, Kadoi K, Omori T, Asagi M, Inaba Y (1987) Hemagglutination with transmissible gastroenteritis virus. Arch Virol 96:109–115Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Krempl C, Schultze B, Laude H, Herrler G (1997) Point mutations in the S protein connect the sialic acid binding activity with the enteropathogenicity of transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus. J Virol 71:3285–3287Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Bernard S, Laude H (1995) Site-specific alteration of transmissible gastroenteritis virus spike protein results in markedly reduced pathogenicity. J Gen Virol 76:2235–2241Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Krempl C, Ballesteros ML, Zimmer G, Enjuanes L, Klenk HD, Herrler G (2000) Characterization of the sialic acid binding activity of transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus by analysis of haemagglutination-deficient mutants. J Gen Virol 81:489–496Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Schwegmann-Wessels C, Zimmer G, Schroder B, Breves G, Herrler G (2003) Binding of transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus to brush border membrane sialoglycoproteins. J Virol 77:11846–11848Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Pensaert M, Callebaut P, Vergote J (1986) Isolation of a porcine respiratory, non-enteric coronavirus related to transmissible gastroenteritis. Vet Q 8:257–261Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Delmas B, Gelfi J, L'Haridon R, Vogel LK, Sjostrom H, Noren O, Laude H (1992) Aminopeptidase N is a major receptor for the entero-pathogenic coronavirus TGEV. Nature 357:417–420Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Cox E, Pensaert MB, Callebaut P, van Deun K (1990) Intestinal replication of a porcine respiratory coronavirus closely related antigenically to the enteric transmissible gastroenteritis virus. Vet Microbiol 23:237–243Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Schwegmann-Wessels C, Zimmer G, Laude H, Enjuanes L, Herrler G (2002) Binding of transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus to cell surface sialoglycoproteins. J Virol 76:6037–6043Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Schwegmann-Wessels C, Bauer S, Winter C, Enjuanes L, Laude H, Herrler G (2011) The sialic acid binding activity of the S protein facilitates infection by porcine transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus. Virol J 8:435Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Bingham RW, Madge MH, Tyrrell DA (1975) Haemagglutination by avian infectious bronchitis virus – a coronavirus. J Gen Virol 28:381–390Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Schultze B, Cavanagh D, Herrler G (1992) Neuraminidase treatment of avian infectious bronchitis coronavirus reveals a hemagglutinating activity that is dependent on sialic acid-containing receptors on erythrocytes. Virology 189:792–794Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Winter C, Schwegmann-Wessels C, Cavanagh D, Neumann U, Herrler G (2006) Sialic acid is a receptor determinant for infection of cells by avian infectious bronchitis virus. J Gen Virol 87:1209–1216Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Abd El Rahman S, El-Kenawy AA, Neumann U, Herrler G, Winter C (2009) Comparative analysis of the sialic acid binding activity and the tropism for the respiratory epithelium of four different strains of avian infectious bronchitis virus. Avian Pathol 38:41–45Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Abd El Rahman S, Winter C, El-Kenawy A, Neumann U, Herrler G (2010) Differential sensitivity of well-differentiated avian respiratory epithelial cells to infection by different strains of infectious bronchitis virus. J Virol 84:8949–8952Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Winter C, Herrler G, Neumann U (2008) Infection of the tracheal epithelium by infectious bronchitis virus is sialic acid dependent. Microbes Infect 10:367–373Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Cornelissen LA, Wierda CM, van der Meer FJ, Herrewegh AA, Horzinek MC, Egberink HF, de Groot RJ (1997) Hemagglutinin-esterase, a novel structural protein of torovirus. J Virol 71:5277–5286Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Duckmanton L, Tellier R, Richardson C, Petric M (1999) The novel hemagglutinin-esterase genes of human torovirus and Breda virus. Virus Res 64:137–149Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Langereis MA, Zeng Q, Gerwig GJ, Frey B, von Itzstein M, Kamerling JP, de Groot RJ, Huizinga EG (2009) Structural basis for ligand and substrate recognition by torovirus hemagglutinin esterases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:15897–15902Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Lamb RA, Parks GD (2007) Paramyxoviridae: the viruses and their replication. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM (eds) Fields Virology. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1449–1496Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Zaitsev V, von Itzstein M, Groves D, Kiefel M, Takimoto T, Portner A, Taylor G (2004) Second sialic acid binding site in Newcastle disease virus hemagglutinin-neuraminidase: implications for fusion. J Virol 78:3733–3741Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Lawrence MC, Borg NA, Streltsov VA, Pilling PA, Epa VC, Varghese JN, McKimm-Breschkin JL, Colman PM (2004) Structure of the haemagglutinin-neuraminidase from human parainfluenza virus type III. J Mol Biol 335:1343–1357Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Yuan P, Thompson TB, Wurzburg BA, Paterson RG, Lamb RA, Jardetzky TS (2005) Structural studies of the parainfluenza virus 5 hemagglutinin-neuraminidase tetramer in complex with its receptor, sialyllactose. Structure 13:803–815Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Alymova IV, Taylor G, Mishin VP, Watanabe M, Murti KG, Boyd K, Chand P, Babu YS, Portner A (2008) Loss of the N-linked glycan at residue 173 of human parainfluenza virus type 1 hemagglutinin-neuraminidase exposes a second receptor-binding site. J Virol 82:8400–8410Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Holmgren J, Svennerholm L, Elwing H, Fredman P, Strannegard O (1980) Sendai virus receptor: proposed recognition structure based on binding to plastic-adsorbed gangliosides. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 77:1947–1950Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Markwell MA, Svennerholm L, Paulson JC (1981) Specific gangliosides function as host cell receptors for Sendai virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78:5406–5410Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Markwell MA, Paulson JC (1980) Sendai virus utilizes specific sialyloligosaccharides as host cell receptor determinants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 77:5693–5697Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Suzuki Y, Suzuki T, Matsumoto M (1983) Isolation and characterization of receptor sialoglycoprotein for hemagglutinating virus of Japan (Sendai virus) from bovine erythrocyte membrane. J Biochem 93:1621–1633Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Suzuki Y, Suzuki T, Matsunaga M, Matsumoto M (1985) Gangliosides as paramyxovirus receptor. Structural requirement of sialo-oligosaccharides in receptors for hemagglutinating virus of Japan (Sendai virus) and Newcastle disease virus. J Biochem 97:1189–1199Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Suzuki T, Portner A, Scroggs RA, Uchikawa M, Koyama N, Matsuo K, Suzuki Y, Takimoto T (2001) Receptor specificities of human respiroviruses. J Virol 75:4604–4613Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Prasad BV, Hardy ME, Dokland T, Bella J, Rossmann MG, Estes MK (1999) X-Ray crystallographic structure of the Norwalk virus capsid. Science 286:287–290Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Prasad BV, Rothnagel R, Jiang X, Estes MK (1994) Three-dimensional structure of baculovirus-expressed Norwalk virus capsids. J Virol 68:5117–5125Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Bu W, Mamedova A, Tan M, Xia M, Jiang X, Hegde RS (2008) Structural basis for the receptor binding specificity of Norwalk virus. J Virol 82:5340–5347Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Cao S, Lou Z, Tan M, Chen Y, Liu Y, Zhang Z, Zhang XC, Jiang X, Li X, Rao Z (2007) Structural basis for the recognition of blood group trisaccharides by norovirus. J Virol 81:5949–5957Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Choi JM, Hutson AM, Estes MK, Prasad BV (2008) Atomic resolution structural characterization of recognition of histo-blood group antigens by Norwalk virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:9175–9180Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Katpally U, Voss NR, Cavazza T, Taube S, Rubin JR, Young VL, Stuckey J, Ward VK, Virgin HWT, Wobus CE et al. (2010) High-resolution cryo-electron microscopy structures of murine norovirus 1 and rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus reveal marked flexibility in the receptor binding domains. J Virol 84:5836–5841Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Taube S, Rubin JR, Katpally U, Smith TJ, Kendall A, Stuckey JA, Wobus CE (2010) High-resolution X-ray structure and functional analysis of the murine norovirus 1 capsid protein protruding domain. J Virol 84:5695–5705Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Wobus CE, Thackray LB, Virgin HWT (2006) Murine norovirus: a model system to study norovirus biology and pathogenesis. J Virol 80:5104–5112Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Estes MK, Prasad BV, Atmar RL (2006) Noroviruses everywhere: has something changed? Curr Opin Infect Dis 19:467–474Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Le Pendu J, Ruvoen-Clouet N, Kindberg E, Svensson L (2006) Mendelian resistance to human norovirus infections. Semin Immunol 18:375–386Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Tan M, Jiang X (2007) Norovirus-host interaction: implications for disease control and prevention. Expert Rev Mol Med 9:1–22Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Tamura M, Natori K, Kobayashi M, Miyamura T, Takeda N (2004) Genogroup II noroviruses efficiently bind to heparan sulfate proteoglycan associated with the cellular membrane. J Virol 78:3817–3826Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Rydell GE, Nilsson J, Rodriguez-Diaz J, Ruvoen-Clouet N, Svensson L, Le Pendu J, Larson G (2009) Human noroviruses recognize sialyl Lewis X neoglycoprotein. Glycobiology 19:309–320Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Taube S, Perry JW, Yetming K, Patel SP, Auble H, Shu L, Nawar HF, Lee CH, Connell TD, Shayman JA et al. (2009) Ganglioside-linked terminal sialic acid moieties on murine macrophages function as attachment receptors for murine noroviruses. J Virol 83:4092–4101Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Stuart AD, Brown TD (2007) Alpha2,6-linked sialic acid acts as a receptor for Feline calicivirus. J Gen Virol 88:177–186Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Tavakkol A, Burness AT (1990) Evidence for a direct role for sialic acid in the attachment of encephalomyocarditis virus to human erythrocytes. Biochemistry 29:10684–10690Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Zhou L, Luo Y, Wu Y, Tsao J, Luo M (2000) Sialylation of the host receptor may modulate entry of demyelinating persistent Theiler's virus. J Virol 74:1477–1485Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Anderson K, Bond CW (1987) Biological properties of mengovirus: characterization of avirulent, hemagglutination-defective mutants. Arch Virol 93:31–49Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Stoner GD, Williams B, Kniazeff A, Shimkin MB (1973) Effect of neuraminidase pretreatment on the susceptibility of normal and transformed mammalian cells to bovine enterovirus 261. Nature 245:319–320Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Nokhbeh MR, Hazra S, Alexander DA, Khan A, McAllister M, Suuronen EJ, Griffith M, Dimock K (2005) Enterovirus 70 binds to different glycoconjugates containing alpha2,3-linked sialic acid on different cell lines. J Virol 79:7087–7094Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Lipton HL, Kumar AS, Trottier M (2005) Theiler's virus persistence in the central nervous system of mice is associated with continuous viral replication and a difference in outcome of infection of infiltrating macrophages versus oligodendrocytes. Virus Res 111:214–223Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Helander A, Silvey KJ, Mantis NJ, Hutchings AB, Chandran K, Lucas WT, Nibert ML, Neutra MR (2003) The viral sigma1 protein and glycoconjugates containing alpha2-3-linked sialic acid are involved in type 1 reovirus adherence to M cell apical surfaces. J Virol 77:7964–7977Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Barton ES, Connolly JL, Forrest JC, Chappell JD, Dermody TS (2001) Utilization of sialic acid as a coreceptor enhances reovirus attachment by multistep adhesion strengthening. J Biol Chem 276:2200–2211Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Prota AE, Campbell JA, Schelling P, Forrest JC, Watson MJ, Peters TR, Aurrand-Lions M, Imhof BA, Dermody TS, Stehle T (2003) Crystal structure of human junctional adhesion molecule 1: implications for reovirus binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:5366–5371Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Connolly JL, Barton ES, Dermody TS (2001) Reovirus binding to cell surface sialic acid potentiates virus-induced apoptosis. J Virol 75:4029–4039Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Dormitzer PR, Sun ZY, Wagner G, Harrison SC (2002) The rhesus rotavirus VP4 sialic acid binding domain has a galectin fold with a novel carbohydrate binding site. EMBO J 21:885–897Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Kraschnefski MJ, Bugarcic A, Fleming FE, Yu X, von Itzstein M, Coulson BS, Blanchard H (2009) Effects on sialic acid recognition of amino acid mutations in the carbohydrate-binding cleft of the rotavirus spike protein. Glycobiology 19:194–200Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Bastardo JW, Holmes IH (1980) Attachment of SA-11 rotavirus to erythrocyte receptors. Infect Immun 29:1134–1140Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Spence L, Fauvel M, Petro R, Bloch S (1976) Haemagglutinin from rotavirus. Lancet 2:1023Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Ciarlet M, Estes MK (1999) Human and most animal rotavirus strains do not require the presence of sialic acid on the cell surface for efficient infectivity. J Gen Virol 80:943–948Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Banda K, Kang G, Varki A (2009) ‘Sialidase sensitivity’ of rotaviruses revisited. Nat Chem Biol 5:71–72Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Haselhorst T, Fleming FE, Dyason JC, Hartnell RD, Yu X, Holloway G, Santegoets K, Kiefel MJ, Blanchard H, Coulson BS et al. (2009) Sialic acid dependence in rotavirus host cell invasion. Nat Chem Biol 5:91–93Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Monnier N, Higo-Moriguchi K, Sun ZY, Prasad BV, Taniguchi K, Dormitzer PR (2006) High-resolution molecular and antigen structure of the VP8* core of a sialic acid-independent human rotavirus strain. J Virol 80:1513–1523Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Lopez S, Arias CF (2006) Early steps in rotavirus cell entry. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 309:39–66Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Dormitzer PR, Sun ZY, Blixt O, Paulson JC, Wagner G, Harrison SC (2002) Specificity and affinity of sialic acid binding by the rhesus rotavirus VP8* core. J Virol 76:10512–10517Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Kuhlenschmidt MS, Rolsma MD, Kuhlenschmidt TB, Gelberg HB (1997) Characterization of a porcine enterocyte receptor for group A rotavirus. Adv Exp Med Biol 412:135–143Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Delorme C, Brussow H, Sidoti J, Roche N, Karlsson KA, Neeser JR, Teneberg S (2001) Glycosphingolipid binding specificities of rotavirus: identification of a sialic acid-binding epitope. J Virol 75:2276–2287Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Superti F, Donelli G (1991) Gangliosides as binding sites in SA-11 rotavirus infection of LLC-MK2 cells. J Gen Virol 72:2467–2474Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Guo CT, Nakagomi O, Mochizuki M, Ishida H, Kiso M, Ohta Y, Suzuki T, Miyamoto D, Hidari KI, Suzuki Y (1999) Ganglioside GM(1a) on the cell surface is involved in the infection by human rotavirus KUN and MO strains. J Biochem 126:683–688Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Liddington RC, Yan Y, Moulai J, Sahli R, Benjamin TL, Harrison SC (1991) Structure of simian virus 40 at 3.8-A resolution. Nature 354:278–284Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Neu U, Woellner K, Gauglitz G, Stehle T (2008) Structural basis of GM1 ganglioside recognition by simian virus 40. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:5219–5224Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Stehle T, Harrison SC (1997) High-resolution structure of a polyomavirus VP1-oligosaccharide complex: implications for assembly and receptor binding. EMBO J 16:5139–5148Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Stehle T, Yan Y, Benjamin TL, Harrison SC (1994) Structure of murine polyomavirus complexed with an oligosaccharide receptor fragment. Nature 369:160–163Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Cahan LD, Paulson JC (1980) Polyoma virus adsorbs to specific sialyloligosaccharide receptors on erythrocytes. Virology 103:505–509Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Cahan LD, Singh R, Paulson JC (1983) Sialyloligosaccharide receptors of binding variants of polyoma virus. Virology 130:281–289Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Fried H, Cahan LD, Paulson JC (1981) Polyoma virus recognizes specific sialyligosaccharide receptors on host cells. Virology 109:188–192Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Tsai B, Gilbert JM, Stehle T, Lencer W, Benjamin TL, Rapoport TA (2003) Gangliosides are receptors for murine polyoma virus and SV40. EMBO J 22:4346–4355Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Stehle T, Harrison SC (1996) Crystal structures of murine polyomavirus in complex with straight-chain and branched-chain sialyloligosaccharide receptor fragments. Structure 4:183–194Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Caruso M, Belloni L, Sthandier O, Amati P, Garcia MI (2003) Alpha4beta1 integrin acts as a cell receptor for murine polyomavirus at the postattachment level. J Virol 77:3913–3921Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Ewers H, Romer W, Smith AE, Bacia K, Dmitrieff S, Chai W, Mancini R, Kartenbeck J, Chambon V, Berland L et al. (2010). GM1 structure determines SV40-induced membrane invagination and infection. Nat Cell Biol 12,11–18; sup pp 11–12.Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Qian M, Cai D, Verhey KJ, Tsai B (2009) A lipid receptor sorts polyomavirus from the endolysosome to the endoplasmic reticulum to cause infection. PLoS Pathog 5:e1000465Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Keppler OT, Herrmann M, Oppenlander M, Meschede W, Pawlita M (1994) Regulation of susceptibility and cell surface receptor for the B-lymphotropic papovavirus by N glycosylation. J Virol 68:6933–6939Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    Dugan AS, Gasparovic ML, Atwood WJ (2008) Direct correlation between sialic acid binding and infection of cells by two human polyomaviruses (JC virus and BK virus). J Virol 82:2560–2564Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    Liu CK, Wei G, Atwood WJ (1998) Infection of glial cells by the human polyomavirus JC is mediated by an N-linked glycoprotein containing terminal alpha(2-6)-linked sialic acids. J Virol 72:4643–4649Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    Komagome R, Sawa H, Suzuki T, Suzuki Y, Tanaka S, Atwood WJ, Nagashima K (2002) Oligosaccharides as receptors for JC virus. J Virol 76:12992–13000Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Elphick GF, Querbes W, Jordan JA, Gee GV, Eash S, Manley K, Dugan A, Stanifer M, Bhatnagar A, Kroeze WK et al. (2004) The human polyomavirus, JCV, uses serotonin receptors to infect cells. Science 306:1380–1383Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    Dugan AS, Eash S, Atwood WJ (2005) An N-linked glycoprotein with alpha(2,3)-linked sialic acid is a receptor for BK virus. J Virol 79:14442–14445Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    Low JA, Magnuson B, Tsai B, Imperiale MJ (2006) Identification of gangliosides GD1b and GT1b as receptors for BK virus. J Virol 80:1361–1366Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    Erickson KD, Garcea RL, Tsai B (2009) Ganglioside GT1b is a putative host cell receptor for the Merkel cell polyomavirus. J Virol 83:10275–10279Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    Arnberg N, Kidd AH, Edlund K, Nilsson J, Pring-Akerblom P, Wadell G (2002) Adenovirus type 37 binds to cell surface sialic acid through a charge-dependent interaction. Virology 302:33–43Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    Burmeister WP, Guilligay D, Cusack S, Wadell G, Arnberg N (2004) Crystal structure of species D adenovirus fiber knobs and their sialic acid binding sites. J Virol 78:7727–7736Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    Schmidt M, Chiorini JA (2006) Gangliosides are essential for bovine adeno-associated virus entry. J Virol 80:5516–5522Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    Kaludov N, Brown KE, Walters RW, Zabner J, Chiorini JA (2001) Adeno-associated virus serotype 4 (AAV4) and AAV5 both require sialic acid binding for hemagglutination and efficient transduction but differ in sialic acid linkage specificity. J Virol 75:6884–6893Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Dickey DD, Excoffon KJ, Koerber JT, Bergen J, Steines B, Klesney-Tait J, Schaffer DV, Zabner J (2011) Enhanced sialic acid-dependent endocytosis explains the increased efficiency of infection of airway epithelia by a novel adeno-associated virus. J Virol 85:9023–9030Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikhail Matrosovich
    • 1
  • Georg Herrler
    • 2
  • Hans Dieter Klenk
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institut für VirologiePhilipps-UniversitätMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Institut für VirologieStiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations