Expression of the mutagenic peptide of herpes simplex virus type 1 in virus-infected cells

Herpes simplex virus and human papillomavirus in a population-based case-control study of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II-III

In order to evaluate the association between seropositivity for herpes simplex virus (type 1 and type 2) and cervical intraepithelial neoplacia (CIN), we analysed data from a population-based case-control study of CIN grade II-III which included Norwegian women aged 20 to 44 years, 94 cases and 228 controls. Our objectives were to determine if HSV-1 and/or HSV-2 seropositivity were independent risk factors for CIN, taking human papillomavirus exposure into account, and to elucidate the combined effect of HPV positivity and seropositivity for HSV In logistic regression analyses, the association between HSV-2 or HSV-1 seropositivity and CIN II-III was not explained by HPV (adjusted OR 3.0; 95%, CI 1.3-7.2 and adjusted OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.3-8.4, respectively). In analyses restricted to HPV-16 DNA-positive individuals, seropositivity for HSV-2 increased the risk of CIN (OR 11.1; 95% CI 1.2-105.7), whereas HSV-1 seropositivity was not significantly associated with CIN. In women positive for other HPV types, only HSV-1 seropositivity was associated with CIN (OR 8.5; 95% CI 1.3-55.8). In analyses of the HPV-16-seropositive individuals, neither HSV-1 nor HSV-2 seropositivity was associated with CIN. Compared to the reference group of jointly unexposed subjects, the HPV-16 DNA-positive women who were anti-HSV-2 negative had an increased risk of CIN (OR 29; 95% CI 12-67), whereas the risk in women who were both HPV-16 DNA-positive and HSV-2 was OR=247 (95% CI 31-1996). The estimate of interaction was strong, but did not reach significance, and our findings may suggest that the combined effect of the two viruses is of aetiological importance in cervical carcinogenesis. Furthermore, the results indicate that HPV DNA positivity is not sufficient to explain the sexual behaviour-associated risk of cervical neoplasia and that further studies on the role of genital HSV (type 1 as well as type 2) and other STDs are warranted.

Attenuation of the natural course of herpes simplex virus infection in human oral epithelial cell cultures by smokeless tobacco extracts suggests the possibility of a synergistic mechanism for carcinogenesis

High prevalence of both tobacco use and latent herpes simplex virus type 1 suggests the opportunity for synergism between these agents as cocarcinogens. In this study, postprimary human oral epithelial cell cultures were infected with herpes simplex virus type 1 pretreated with 2% extracts of either loose leaf, moist, or dry snuffs. Cultures were subsequently periodically exposed to the tobacco. Parameters measured included percentage of cultures undergoing active virus production, onset and time course of cytopathic effects, and concentration of virus released into the media over time. Results showed inhibition of both herpes simplex virus-mediated cell lysis and viral replication by tobacco extracts. This is the first time that these phenomena have been demonstrated in normal human oral epithelial cells. The work described here provides evidence to support a hypothesis that herpes simplex virus type 1 and smokeless tobacco may act synergistically in oral carcinogenesis.

The effect on cell phenotype of the mutagenic peptide of herpes simplex virus type-1

The transforming region of the genome of herpes simplex virus type-1 (HSV-1) encodes a peptide that raises the mutation frequency of cells. To find the effect of this peptide on cell phenotype, three types of cells were transfected with a shuttle vector plasmid that expressed the peptide. When immortalised rat fibroblasts were transfected they rapidly became anchorage-independent with high efficiency, but were not tumorigenic in nude mice. When monkey kidney cells were transfected, five clonal cell lines were isolated, of which one became anchorage-independent but was not tumorigenic in nude mice. When human oral keratinocytes were transfected they did not become immortalised. The peptide therefore induced some of the features of transformation in different cell types, but did not induce a malignant phenotype in any cell. This suggests that interaction with co-factors would be necessary for the peptide to contribute to the development of oral cancer.