Innate Immune Responses of Bat and Human Cells to Filoviruses: Commonalities and Distinctions.

Ivan V Kuzmin1,2 Toni M Schwarz3 Philipp A Ilinykh1,2 Ingo Jordan4 Thomas G Ksiazek1,2,5 Ravi Sachidanandam6 Christopher F Basler3 Alexander Bukreyev7,2,5
Affiliations 7 institutions
  1. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
  2. Galveston National Laboratory, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
  3. Department of Microbiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
  4. ProBioGen AG, Berlin, Germany.
  5. Department Microbiology & Immunology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
  6. Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
  7. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA [email protected].

Abstract

Marburg (MARV) and Ebola (EBOV) viruses are zoonotic pathogens that cause severe hemorrhagic fever in humans. The natural reservoir of MARV is the Egyptian rousette bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus); that of EBOV is unknown but believed to be another bat species. The Egyptian rousette develops subclinical productive infection with MARV but is refractory to EBOV. Interaction of filoviruses with hosts is greatly affected by the viral interferon (IFN)-inhibiting domains (IID). Our study was aimed at characterization of innate immune responses to filoviruses and the role of filovirus IID in bat and human cells. The study demonstrated that EBOV and MARV replicate to similar levels in all tested cell lines, indicating that permissiveness for EBOV at cell and organism levels do not necessarily correlate. Filoviruses, particularly MARV, induced a potent innate immune response in rousette cells, which was generally stronger than that in human cells. Both EBOV VP35 and VP24 IID were found to suppress the innate immune response in rousette cells, but only VP35 IID appeared to promote virus replication. Along with IFN-α and IFN-β, IFN-γ was demonstrated to control filovirus infection in bat cells but not in human cells, suggesting host species specificity of the antiviral effect. The antiviral effects of bat IFNs appeared not to correlate with induction of IFN-stimulated genes 54 and 56, which were detected in human cells ectopically expressing bat IFN-α and IFN-β. As bat IFN-γ induced the type I IFN pathway, its antiviral effect is likely to be partially induced via cross talk.IMPORTANCE Bats serve as reservoirs for multiple emerging viruses, including filoviruses, henipaviruses, lyssaviruses, and zoonotic coronaviruses. Although there is no evidence for symptomatic disease caused by either Marburg or Ebola viruses in bats, spillover of these viruses into human populations causes deadly outbreaks. The reason for the lack of symptomatic disease in bats infected with filoviruses remains unknown. The outcome of a virus-host interaction depends on the ability of the host immune system to suppress viral replication and the ability of a virus to counteract the host defenses. Our study is a comparative analysis of the host innate immune response to either MARV or EBOV infection in bat and human cells and the role of viral interferon-inhibiting domains in the host innate immune responses. The data are useful for understanding the interactions of filoviruses with natural and accidental hosts and for identification of factors that influence filovirus evolution.

Supporting text Virus Host Location
accidental host 1 bat 54 Ebola virus 18 immune evasion 28 interferon-inhibiting domain 1 interferons 10 Marburg virus 11 natural host 2 Immunity, Innate 17 Animals 1948 Cell Line 158 Chiroptera 371 Ebolavirus 31 Humans 1440 Immune Tolerance 2 Interferons 10 Marburgvirus 12 Protein Domains 45 Viral Proteins 152 Virus Replication 191

Evidence records

2 total
Zoonotic Surveillance
1 records · 1 evidence types
Evidence type
1 records
OVE2506
Key finding

The Egyptian rousette bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus) is identified as the natural reservoir of Marburg virus, showing subclinical productive infection while being refractory to Ebola virus.

Virus
Host
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

The natural reservoir of MARV is the Egyptian rousette bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus); that of EBOV is unknown but believed to be another bat species. The Egyptian rousette develops subclinical productive infection with MARV but is refractory to EBOV.

Method
infection characterization | comparative host response analysis
Functional Mechanism
1 records · 1 evidence types
Evidence type
1 records
OVE2509
Key finding

Ebola virus VP35 interferon-inhibiting domain suppresses the innate immune response in rousette bat cells and enhances viral replication, while VP24 IID suppresses innate response without promoting replication.

Virus
Host
Not specified
Location
Not specified
Supporting text

Both EBOV VP35 and VP24 IID were found to suppress the innate immune response in rousette cells, but only VP35 IID appeared to promote virus replication.

Genes or proteins
VP35 | VP24
Host factors
innate immune response
Mechanism types
immune escape | replication adaptation