↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of a Virus-Like Nanoparticle As Treatment for a Chronic Viral Infection Is Hindered by IRAK1 Regulation and Antibody Interference

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of a Virus-Like Nanoparticle As Treatment for a Chronic Viral Infection Is Hindered by IRAK1 Regulation and Antibody Interference
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01885
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karine Chartrand, Marie-Ève Lebel, Esther Tarrab, Pierre Savard, Denis Leclerc, Alain Lamarre

Abstract

Although vaccination has been an effective way of preventing infections ever since the eighteenth century, the generation of therapeutic vaccines and immunotherapies is still a work in progress. A number of challenges impede the development of these therapeutic approaches such as safety issues related to the administration of whole pathogens whether attenuated or inactivated. One safe alternative to classical vaccination methods gaining recognition is the use of nanoparticles, whether synthetic or naturally derived. We have recently demonstrated that the papaya mosaic virus (PapMV)-like nanoparticle can be used as a prophylactic vaccine against various viral and bacterial infections through the induction of protective humoral and cellular immune responses. Moreover, PapMV is also very efficient when used as an immune adjuvant in an immunotherapeutic setting at slowing down the growth of aggressive mouse melanoma tumors in a type I interferon (IFN-I)-dependent manner. In the present study, we were interested in exploiting the capacity of PapMV of inducing robust IFN-I production as treatment for the chronic viral infection model lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) clone 13 (Cl13). Treatment of LCMV Cl13-infected mice with two systemic administrations of PapMV was ineffective, as shown by the lack of changes in viral titers and immune response to LCMV following treatment. Moreover, IFN-α production following PapMV administration was almost completely abolished in LCMV-infected mice. To better isolate the mechanisms at play, we determined the influence of a pretreatment with PapMV on secondary PapMV administration, therefore eliminating potential variables emanating from the infection. Pretreatment with PapMV led to the same outcome as an LCMV infection in that IFN-α production following secondary PapMV immunization was abrogated for up to 50 days while immune activation was also dramatically impaired. We showed that two distinct and overlapping mechanisms were responsible for this outcome. While short-term inhibition was partially the result of interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 1 degradation, a crucial component of the toll-like receptor 7 signaling pathway, long-term inhibition was mainly due to interference by PapMV-specific antibodies. Thus, we identified a possible pitfall in the use of virus-like particles for the systemic treatment of chronic viral infections and discuss mitigating alternatives to circumvent these potential problems.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 35%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Other 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 4 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 15%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#15,386
of 31,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,393
of 450,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#362
of 605 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 605 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.