1
|
Cao L, She Z, Zhao Y, Cheng C, Li Y, Xu T, Mao H, Zhang Y, Hui X, Lin X, Wang T, Sun X, Huang K, Zhao L, Jin M. Inhibition of RAN attenuates influenza a virus replication and nucleoprotein nuclear export. Emerg Microbes Infect 2024; 13:2387910. [PMID: 39087696 PMCID: PMC11321118 DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2024.2387910] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2024] [Revised: 07/21/2024] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 08/02/2024]
Abstract
Nuclear export of the viral ribonucleoprotein (vRNP) is a critical step in the influenza A virus (IAV) life cycle and may be an effective target for the development of anti-IAV drugs. The host factor ras-related nuclear protein (RAN) is known to participate in the life cycle of several viruses, but its role in influenza virus replication remains unknown. In the present study, we aimed to determine the function of RAN in influenza virus replication using different cell lines and subtype strains. We found that RAN is essential for the nuclear export of vRNP, as it enhances the binding affinity of XPO1 toward the viral nuclear export protein NS2. Depletion of RAN constrained the vRNP complex in the nucleus and attenuated the replication of various subtypes of influenza virus. Using in silico compound screening, we identified that bepotastine could dissociate the RAN-XPO1-vRNP trimeric complex and exhibit potent antiviral activity against influenza virus both in vitro and in vivo. This study demonstrates the important role of RAN in IAV replication and suggests its potential use as an antiviral target.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lei Cao
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Ziwei She
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Ya Zhao
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Chuxing Cheng
- Wuhan Keqian Biological Co. Ltd., Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Yaqin Li
- Wuhan Keqian Biological Co. Ltd., Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Ting Xu
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Haiying Mao
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Yumei Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xianfeng Hui
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xian Lin
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Ting Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xiaomei Sun
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Kun Huang
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Lianzhong Zhao
- College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China
| | - Meilin Jin
- State Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- College of Animal Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
- Hubei Jiangxia Laboratory, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Marini MC, Berra ML, Girado F, Albera PA, del Papa MS, Passerini MS, Aguilar AJ. Efficacy and Toxicity Evaluation of Bepotastine Besilate 1.5% Preservative-Free Eye Drops Vs Olopatadine Hydrochloride 0.2% Bak-Preserved Eye Drops in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis. Clin Ophthalmol 2023; 17:3477-3489. [PMID: 38026598 PMCID: PMC10658941 DOI: 10.2147/opth.s431889] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2023] [Accepted: 11/02/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To study the efficacy and toxic effects of bepotastine besilate 1.5% preservative-free (BB-PF) and olopatadine 0.2% BAK-preserved (OL-BAK) drops on the ocular surface of patients with allergic conjunctivitis. Patients and Methods Ninety-seven patients with allergic conjunctivitis diagnosis participated in a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. Patients received either BB-PF (n=48) or OL-BAK (n=49), both administered once daily in the morning. The patients were followed for 60 days. Ocular itching was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included ocular symptoms, signs, and non-ocular symptoms associated with rhinoconjunctivitis. Conjunctival impression cytology (CIC) was performed to evaluate histopathological changes related to the toxic effects of preservatives. Results BB-PF treatment was associated with a 1.30 more probability of diminished ocular itching than OL-BAK (odds ratio (OR)=1.30; 95% CI=(0.96-1.7); p=0.086). No statistically significant differences were found between treatments in the resolution of other ocular symptoms or signs, except for tearing, which was superior in the BB-PF (OR=1.37; 95% (1.26-1.47); p<0.0001). BB-PF was superior in terms of the resolution of rhinorrhea (p=0.040) and nasal itching (p=0.037). After 60 days of treatment, the BB-PF group exhibited 2.0 times higher probability of having a lower Nelson scale score compared to the OL-BAK group (OR=2.00; 95% CI=(1.19-3.34); p=0.010). Conclusion Both medications presented a similar efficacy in terms of the resolution of ocular signs and symptoms associated with ocular conjunctivitis. BB-PF is superior in the resolution of non-ocular symptoms and safer for the ocular surface than OL-BAK.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- María Cecilia Marini
- Ophthalmology Service, El Cruce-Nestor Kirchner High Complexity Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Martín Lucas Berra
- Cornea Transplant Service, Pedro Lagleyze Institute, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Fernada Girado
- Ophthalmology Service, Churruca-Visca Police Medical Complex, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Paula Alejandra Albera
- Ocular Surface Service, Santa Lucia Ophthalmological Hospital, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Melina Sol del Papa
- Medical Affairs Department, Poen Laboratories, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - María Silvia Passerini
- Medical Affairs Department, Poen Laboratories, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rodrigues J, Kuruvilla ME, Vanijcharoenkarn K, Patel N, Hom MM, Wallace DV. The spectrum of allergic ocular diseases. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2020; 126:240-254. [PMID: 33276116 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2020.11.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2020] [Revised: 11/23/2020] [Accepted: 11/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this article is to review the pathophysiologic mechanisms, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of the various manifestations of ocular allergy, with an especial focus on immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated disease. DATA SOURCES A PubMed search was performed to include articles, using the search terms ocular allergy and allergic conjunctivitis. STUDY SELECTIONS Recent and relevant human studies in the English language pertaining to our topic of study were selected. Animal studies pertaining to pathophysiology of ocular allergy were also reviewed. We focused on clinical trials, practice guidelines, reviews, and systematic reviews. In addition, case reports were reviewed if they described rare clinical presentations, disease mechanisms, or novel therapies. RESULTS Ocular allergy encompasses both IgE- and non-IgE-mediated disease, and the clinical severity may range from mild to sight-threatening inflammation. A comprehensive treatment regimen including education, lifestyle measures, topical therapies, and even systemic interventions may be necessary for the effective management of ocular allergies, tailored according to symptom severity. CONCLUSION Ocular allergy is frequently encountered by allergists and eye-care specialists, and despite progressively increasing incidence, it often remains underdiagnosed and, hence, untreated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Rodrigues
- Allergy & Immunology, Sanford Health, Bismarck, North Dakota; Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Pediatrics, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Grand Forks, North Dakota.
| | - Merin E Kuruvilla
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Kristine Vanijcharoenkarn
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Nikki Patel
- Allergy & Immunology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
| | | | - Dana V Wallace
- Allergy and Immunology, Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Meier EJ, Torkildsen GL, Gomes PJ, Jasek MC. Phase III trials examining the efficacy of cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% compared to vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ophthalmol 2018; 12:2617-2628. [PMID: 30587908 PMCID: PMC6296187 DOI: 10.2147/opth.s185835] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of these Phase III studies was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% compared with vehicle in the treatment of allergen-induced conjunctivitis using the Ora conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC)® model. Methods The single-center (Study 1) and multi-center (Study 2), double-masked, randomized, vehicle-controlled, parallel group, CAC studies were conducted over ~5 weeks and four study visits. The study design only differed in entry criteria: Study 2 required more severe allergic conjunctivitis symptoms. Subjects were screened for an allergen response at Visits 1 and 2 and then randomized at Visit 3. Approximately 100 subjects were randomized in each study. The primary efficacy endpoints were ocular itching and conjunctival redness 15 minutes and 8 hours post-treatment, post-CAC. Results Cetirizine treatment administered 15 minutes or 8 hours prior to CAC resulted in significantly lower ocular itching at all time points post-CAC (P<0.0001) compared to vehicle in both studies. Conjunctival redness measured by the investigator was significantly lower after cetirizine treatment compared to vehicle at 7 minutes post-CAC at both 15 minutes and 8 hours post-treatment in both studies (P<0.05). All secondary endpoints were in favor and confirmatory of cetirizine efficacy with significant improvement in chemosis, eyelid swelling, tearing, ciliary redness, and episcleral redness, as well as nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, nasal pruritus, ear or palatal pruritus, and nasal congestion) post-CAC. The most robust treatment differences were observed in Study 2 where more severe symptoms were required for study entry (P<0.05). No safety concerns for cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% were identified. Conclusion Cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% was shown to be efficacious in the treatment of ocular and nasal signs and symptoms associated with allergic conjunctivitis and demonstrated a favorable safety profile. Clinical efficacy was demonstrated with a 15-minute onset of action and añ8-hour duration of action.
Collapse
|