Open Access
Review
Key Factors in the Multiple Mechanisms of Virus Entry
Yifan Wang1, 2
, Quanxiang Yu1, 3
, Shuru Lin1, 3
, Wenqi Jiang1, 3
, Zhengfei Qi1, 3, 4
, Lina Wang1, 3
, Lian Wu1, 3
, Rui Ma1, 3
, Kexin Zhang1, 3
, Shurong Chen1, 3, 4
, Jiayi Xie1, 3
, Lingli Zheng1, 3, 4
, Min Zhou1, 3, 4
, Author Information
Submitted: 22 Oct 2024 | Revised: 12 Nov 2024 | Accepted: 19 Dec 2024 | Published: 2 Jan 2025
Abstract
Viruses are non-cellular organisms that must parasitize and multiply within living cells to achieve their replicative procedures. Viral assaults can affect bacteria, eukaryotes, and archaea. Well-known viral illnesses in human history include smallpox, Ebola, the black death, the Spanish flu, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), rabies, SARS, etc. Each of these diseases has caused countless deaths and severe consequences, greatly hindering the progress of human civilization and economic growth. Invasion of host cells by viruses can be broadly divided into several steps: adhesion, entry, replication, assembly, and release. Viral entry is particularly essential for viral invasion of host cells to cause infection. Different methods are employed by enveloped and non-enveloped viruses to mediate virus entry. Whichever entry technique is used, a few essential proteins (virus membrane proteins and cell receptor proteins) play crucial rules. Our knowledge of the structures of important proteins is also essential since it can inform us of the precise steps involved in this procedure. This review discusses the various methods of virus entry (such as Clathrin/Caveolae-mediated endocytosis, Lipid raft, and Macropinocytosis), lists a few typical fusion proteins in virus entry, and offers brief information on the structural characteristics of virus entry for diseases caused by the HIV and the recently discovered virus SARS-CoV-2. The intention of this page is to provide readers with an overall overview of virus entry pathways and to serve as a theoretical foundation for pertinent researches.
Graphical Abstract
Keywords
References
1.
Mercer, J.; Lee, J.E.; Saphire, E.O.; et al. SnapShot: Enveloped Virus Entry. Cell 2020, 182, 786–786.e781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.033.
2.
Dimitrov, D.S. Virus entry: Molecular mechanisms and biomedical applications. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 2, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro817.
3.
Tang, B.; Sun, E.Z.; Zhang, Z.L.; et al. Sphingomyelin-SequesteredCholesterol Domain Recruits Formin-Binding Protein 17 for Constricting Clathrin-Coated Pits in Influenza Virus Entry. J. Virol. 2022, 96, e0181321. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01813-21.
4.
Humphries, A.C.; Dodding, M.P.; Barry, D.J.; et al. Clathrin potentiates vaccinia-induced actin polymerization to facilitate viral spread. Cell Host Microbe 2012, 12, 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2012.08.002.
5.
Wang, Y.; Li, G.L.; Qi, Y.L.; et al. Pseudorabies Virus Inhibits Expression of Liver X Receptors to Assist Viral Infection. Viruses 2022, 14, 514. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14030514.
6.
Shi, R.; Hou, L.; Wei, L.; et al. Involvement of adaptor proteins in clathrin-mediated endocytosis of virus entry. Microb. Pathog. 2021, 161, 105278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2021.105278.
7.
Kovtun, O.; Dickson, V.K.; Kelly, B.T.; et al. Architecture of the AP2/clathrin coat on the membranes of clathrin-coated vesicles. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaba8381. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba8381.
8.
Gulbranson, D.R.; Crisman, L.; Lee, M.; et al. AAGAB Controls AP2 Adaptor Assembly in Clathrin-Mediated Endocytosis. Dev. Cell 2019, 50, 436–446.e435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2019.06.013.
9.
Mettlen, M.; Chen, P.H.; Srinivasan, S.; et al. Regulation of Clathrin-Mediated Endocytosis. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2018, 87, 871–896. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-062917-012644.
10.
Cheng, X.; Chen, K.; Dong, B.; et al. Dynamin-dependent vesicle twist at the final stage of clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 2021, 23, 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-021-00713-x.
11.
Zeno, W.F.; Hochfelder, J.B.; Thatte, A.S.; et al. Clathrin senses membrane curvature. Biophys. J. 2021, 120, 818–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2020.12.035.
12.
Xing, Y.; Wen, Z.; Gao, W.; et al. Multifaceted Functions of Host Cell Caveolae/Caveolin-1 in Virus Infections. Viruses 2020, 12, 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12050487.
13.
Zhu, Y.Z.; Xu, Q.Q.; Wu, D.G.; et al. Japanese encephalitis virus enters rat neuroblastoma cells via a pH-dependent, dynamin and caveola-mediated endocytosis pathway. J. Virol. 2012, 86, 13407–13422. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00903-12.
14.
Xu, Q.; Cao, M.; Song, H.; et al. Caveolin-1-mediated Japanese encephalitis virus entry requires a two-step regulation of actin reorganization. Future Microbiol. 2016, 11, 1227–1248. https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb-2016-0002.
15.
Liu, Y.G.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; et al. Ezrin is essential for the entry of Japanese encephalitis virus into the human brain microvascular endothelial cells. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2020, 9, 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1757388.
16.
Yang, B.; Qi, X.; Guo, H.; et al. Peste des Petits Ruminants Virus Enters Caprine Endometrial Epithelial Cells via the Caveolae-Mediated Endocytosis Pathway. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00210.
17.
Nomura, R.; Kiyota, A.; Suzaki, E.; et al. Human coronavirus 229E binds to CD13 in rafts and enters the cell through caveolae. J. Virol. 2004, 78, 8701–8708. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.78.16.8701-8708.2004.
18.
Szczepanski, A.; Owczarek, K.; Milewska, A.; et al. Canine respiratory coronavirus employs caveolin-1-mediated pathway for internalization to HRT-18G cells. Vet. Res. 2018, 49, 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-018-0551-9.
19.
Owczarek, K.; Szczepanski, A.; Milewska, A.; et al. Early events during human coronavirus OC43 entry to the cell. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 7124. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25640-0.
20.
Zhao, T.; Cui, L.; Yu, X.; et al. Entry of sapelovirus into IPEC-J2 cells is dependent on caveolae-mediated endocytosis. Virol. J. 2019, 16, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-019-1144-6.
21.
Wang, H.; Yang, P.; Liu, K.; et al. SARS coronavirus entry into host cells through a novel clathrin- and caveolae-independent endocytic pathway. Cell Res. 2008, 18, 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2008.15.
22.
Kapadia, S.B.; Barth, H.; Baumert, T.; et al. Initiation of hepatitis C virus infection is dependent on cholesterol and cooperativity between CD81 and scavenger receptor B type I. J. Virol. 2007, 81, 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01134-06.
23.
Bavari, S.; Bosio, C.M.; Wiegand, E.; et al. Lipid raft microdomains: A gateway for compartmentalized trafficking of Ebola and Marburg viruses. J. Exp. Med. 2002, 195, 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20011500.
24.
Jin, C.; Che, B.; Guo, Z.; et al. Single virus tracking of Ebola virus entry through lipid rafts in living host cells. Biosaf. Health 2020, 2, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bsheal.2019.12.009.
25.
Sato, R.; Okura, T.; Kawahara, M.; et al. Apical Trafficking Pathways of Influenza A Virus HA and NA via Rab17- and Rab23-Positive Compartments. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1857. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01857.
26.
Chen, S.; He, H.; Yang, H.; et al. The role of lipid rafts in cell entry of human metapneumovirus. J. Med. Virol. 2019, 91, 949–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25414.
27.
Carter, G.C.; Bernstone, L.; Sangani, D.; et al. HIV entry in macrophages is dependent on intact lipid rafts. Virology 2009, 386, 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2008.12.031.
28.
Zhu, Y.Z.; Wu, D.G.; Ren, H.; et al. The role of lipid rafts in the early stage of Enterovirus 71 infection. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 35, 1347–1359. https://doi.org/10.1159/000373956.
29.
Levental, I.; Levental, K.R.; Heberle, F.A. Lipid Rafts: Controversies Resolved, Mysteries Remain. Trends Cell Biol. 2020, 30, 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2020.01.009.
30.
Salloum, G.; Jakubik, C.T.; Erami, Z.; et al. PI3Kβ isselectively required for growth factor-stimulated macropinocytosis. J. Cell Sci. 2019, 132, jcs231639. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.231639.
31.
Miyamoto, T.; Toyooka, K.; Chuah, J.A.; et al. A Synthetic Multidomain Peptide That Drives a Macropinocytosis-Like Mechanism for Cytosolic Transport of Exogenous Proteins into Plants. JACS Au 2022, 2, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.1c00504.
32.
Mishra, R.; Bhowmick, N.A. Visualization of Macropinocytosis in Prostate Fibroblasts. Bio Protoc. 2019, 9, e3235–e3235. https://doi.org/10.21769/BioProtoc.3235.
33.
Koh, Y.W.H.; Hung, Y.; Tuladhar, N.; et al. Live Fluorescence, Inverse Imaging of Cell Ruffling, and Macropinocytosis. J. Vis. Exp. 2021, 174, e62870. https://doi.org/10.3791/62870.
34.
Fernando, L.P.; Kandel, P.K.; Ackroyd, P.C.; et al. The relative brightness of PEG lipid-conjugated polymer nanoparticles as fluid-phase markers in live cells. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2012, 404, 3003–3014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-012-6441-5.
35.
Belaid, A.; Filippakis, H. Quantitative Assessment of Macropinocytosis in mTORC1-Hyperactive Cells using Flow Cytometry. J. Vis. Exp. 2021, 174, e62793. https://doi.org/10.3791/62793.
36.
Yoo, D.Y.; Barros, S.A.; Brown, G.C.; et al. Macropinocytosis as a Key Determinant of Peptidomimetic Uptake in Cancer Cells. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 14461–14471. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c02109.
37.
Liu, X.; Ghosh, D. Intracellular nanoparticle delivery by oncogenic KRAS-mediated macropinocytosis. Int. J. Nanomedicine 2019, 14, 6589–6600. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijn.S212861.
38.
Słońska, A.; Cymerys, J.; Bańbura, M.W. Mechanisms of endocytosis utilized by viruses during infection. Adv. Hyg. Exp. Med. 2016, 70, 572–580. https://doi.org/10.5604/17322693.1203721.
39.
Pennington, M.R.; Saha, A.; Painter, D.F.; et al. Disparate Entry of Adenoviruses Dictates Differential Innate Immune Responses on the Ocular Surface. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7090351.
40.
Merilahti, P.; Koskinen, S.; Heikkilä, O.; et al. Endocytosis of integrin-binding human picornaviruses. Adv. Virol. 2012, 2012, 547530. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/547530.
41.
Izumida, M.; Hayashi, H.; Tanaka, A.; et al. Cathepsin B Protease Facilitates Chikungunya Virus Envelope Protein-Mediated Infection via Endocytosis or Macropinocytosis. Viruses 2020, 12, 722. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12070722.
42.
Yasen, A.; Herrera, R.; Rosbe, K.; et al. HIV internalization into oral and genital epithelial cells by endocytosis and macropinocytosis leads to viral sequestration in the vesicles. Virology 2018, 515, 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2017.12.012.
43.
Zhang, Y.; Whittaker, G.R. Influenza entry pathways in polarized MDCK cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2014, 450, 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.05.095.
44.
Paluck, A.; Osan, J.; Hollingsworth, L.; et al. Role of ARP2/3 Complex-Driven Actin Polymerization in RSV Infection. Pathogens 2021, 11, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11010026.
45.
Plescia, C.B.; Lindstrom, A.R.; Quintero, M.V.; et al. Evaluation of Phenol-Substituted Diphyllin Derivatives as Selective Antagonists for Ebola Virus Entry. ACS Infect. Dis. 2022, 8, 942–957. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.1c00474.
46.
Bauherr, S.; Larsberg, F.; Petrich, A.; et al. Macropinocytosis and Clathrin-Dependent Endocytosis Play Pivotal Roles for the Infectious Entry of Puumala Virus. J. Virol. 2020, 94, 00184-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00184-20.
47.
Zwartkruis, F.J.; Burgering, B.M. Ras and macropinocytosis: Trick and treat. Cell Res. 2013, 23, 982–983. https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2013.79.
48.
Means, N.; Elechalawar, C.K.; Chen, W.R.; et al. Revealing macropinocytosis using nanoparticles. Mol. Aspects Med. 2022, 83, 100993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2021.100993.
49.
Egami, Y.; Taguchi, T.; Maekawa, M.; et al. Small GTPases and phosphoinositides in the regulatory mechanisms of macropinosome formation and maturation. Front. Physiol. 2014, 5, 374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2014.00374.
50.
Harrison, S.C. Viral membrane fusion. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2008, 15, 690–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1456.
51.
Podbilewicz, B. Virus and cell fusion mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2014, 30, 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-101512-122422.
52.
White, J.M.; Delos, S.E.; Brecher, M.; et al. Structures and mechanisms of viral membrane fusion proteins: Multiple variations on a common theme. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2008, 43, 189–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409230802058320.
53.
Prévost, J.; Medjahed, H.; Vézina, D.; et al. HIV-1 Envelope Glycoproteins Proteolytic Cleavage Protects Infected Cells from ADCC Mediated by Plasma from Infected Individuals. Viruses 2021, 13, 2236. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13112236.
54.
Tse, L.V.; Hamilton, A.M.; Friling, T.; et al. A novel activation mechanism of avian influenza virus H9N2 by furin. J. Virol. 2014, 88, 1673–1683. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.02648-13.
55.
Ye, X.; Cabral de Rezende, W.; Iwuchukwu, O.P.; et al. Antibody Response to the Furin Cleavable Twenty-Seven Amino Acid Peptide (p27) of the Fusion Protein in Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Infected Adult Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (HCT) Recipients. Vaccines 2020, 8, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8020192.
56.
Yu, C.; Li, S.; Zhang, X.; et al. MARCH8 Inhibits Ebola Virus Glycoprotein, Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Envelope Glycoprotein, and Avian Influenza Virus H5N1 Hemagglutinin Maturation. mBio 2020, 11, 01882-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01882-20.
57.
Rabaan, A.A.; Al-Ahmed, S.H.; Haque, S.; et al. SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-COV: A comparative overview. Infez. Med. 2020, 28, 174–184.
58.
Rey, F.A.; Heinz, F.X.; Mandl, C.; et al. The envelope glycoprotein from tick-borne encephalitis virus at 2 A resolution. Nature 1995, 375, 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/375291a0.
59.
Modis, Y.; Ogata, S.; Clements, D.; et al. Structure of the dengue virus envelope protein after membrane fusion. Nature 2004, 427, 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02165.
60.
Gibbons, D.L.; Vaney, M.C.; Roussel, A.; et al. Conformational change and protein-protein interactions of the fusion protein of Semliki Forest virus. Nature 2004, 427, 320–325. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02239.
61.
Backovic, M.; Jardetzky, T.S. Class III viral membrane fusion proteins. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2011, 714, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0782-5_3.
62.
Roche, S.; Rey, F.A.; Gaudin, Y.; et al. Structure of the prefusion form of the vesicular stomatitis virus glycoprotein G. Science 2007, 315, 843–848. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1135710.
63.
Roche, S.; Bressanelli, S.; Rey, F.A.; et al. Crystal structure of the low-pH form of the vesicular stomatitis virus glycoprotein G. Science 2006, 313, 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127683.
64.
Baquero, E.; Albertini, A.A.; Gaudin, Y. Recent mechanistic and structural insights on class III viral fusion glycoproteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2015, 33, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2015.07.011.
65.
Dev, J.; Park, D.; Fu, Q.; et al. Structural basis for membrane anchoring of HIV-1 envelope spike. Science 2016, 353, 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7066.
66.
Xiao, T.; Cai, Y.; Chen, B. HIV-1 Entry and Membrane Fusion Inhibitors. Viruses 2021, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13050735.
67.
Wilen, C.B.; Tilton, J.C.; Doms, R.W. HIV: Cell binding and entry. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2012, 2. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a006866.
68.
Chen, B. Molecular Mechanism of HIV-1 Entry. Trends Microbiol. 2019, 27, 878–891.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2019.06.002.
69.
Shu, W.; Liu, J.; Ji, H.; et al. Helical interactions in the HIV-1 gp41 core reveal structural basis for the inhibitory activity of gp41 peptides. Biochemistry 2000, 39, 1634–1642. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi9921687.
70.
Lu, M.; Stoller, M.O.; Wang, S.; et al. Structural and functional analysis of interhelical interactions in the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 gp41 envelope glycoprotein by alanine-scanning mutagenesis. J. Virol. 2001, 75, 11146–11156. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.75.22.11146-11156.2001.
71.
Fu, Q.; Shaik, M.M.; Cai, Y.; et al. Structure of the membrane proximal external region of HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E8892–e8899. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807259115.
72.
Murphy, R.E.; Samal, A.B.; Vlach, J.; et al. Solution Structure and Membrane Interaction of the Cytoplasmic Tail of HIV-1 gp41 Protein. Structure 2017, 25, 1708–1718.e1705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2017.09.010.
73.
Piai, A.; Fu, Q.; Cai, Y.; et al. Structural basis of transmembrane coupling of the HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 2317. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16165-0.
74.
Shaik, M.M.; Peng, H.; Lu, J.; et al. Structural basis of coreceptor recognition by HIV-1 envelope spike. Nature 2019, 565, 318–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0804-9.
75.
Farzan, M.; Mirzabekov, T.; Kolchinsky, P.; et al. Tyrosine sulfation of the amino terminus of CCR5 facilitates HIV-1 entry. Cell 1999, 96, 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80577-2.
76.
Bannert, N.; Craig, S.; Farzan, M.; et al. Sialylated O-glycans and sulfated tyrosines in the NH2-terminal domain of CC chemokine receptor 5 contribute to high affinity binding of chemokines. J. Exp. Med. 2001, 194, 1661–1673. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.194.11.1661.
77.
V’Kovski, P.; Kratzel, A.; Steiner, S.; et al. Coronavirus biology and replication: Implications for SARS-CoV-2. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-00468-6.
78.
Li, G.; Hilgenfeld, R.; Whitley, R.; et al. Therapeutic strategies for COVID-19: Progress and lessons learned. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2023, 22, 449–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-023-00672-y.
79.
Li, X.; Zhu, W.; Fan, M.; et al. Dependence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on cholesterol-rich lipid raft and endosomal acidification. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2021, 19, 1933–1943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2021.04.001.
80.
Roncato, R.; Angelini, J.; Pani, A.; et al. Lipid rafts as viral entry routes and immune platforms: A double-edged sword in SARS-CoV-2 infection? Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell Biol. Lipids 2022, 1867, 159140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip.2022.159140.
81.
Jackson, C.B.; Farzan, M.; Chen, B.; et al. Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2022, 23, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-021-00418-x.
82.
Yurkovetskiy, L.; Wang, X.; Pascal, K.E.; et al. Structural and Functional Analysis of the D614G SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Variant. Cell 2020, 183, 739–751.e738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.032.
83.
Casalino, L.; Gaieb, Z.; Goldsmith, J.A.; et al. Beyond Shielding: The Roles of Glycans in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. ACS Cent. Sci. 2020, 6, 1722–1734. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.0c01056.
84.
Essalmani, R.; Jain, J.; Susan-Resiga, D.; et al. Distinctive Roles of Furin and TMPRSS2 in SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity. J. Virol. 2022, 96, e0012822. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00128-22.
85.
Liu, W.; Zhao, Y.; Fan, J.; et al. Smoke and Spike: Benzo[a]pyrene Enhances SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Boosting NR4A2-Induced ACE2 and TMPRSS2 Expression. Adv. Sci. 2023, 10, e2300834. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202300834.
86.
Qu, B.; Miskey, C.; Gomer, A.; et al. TMPRSS2-mediated SARS-CoV-2 uptake boosts innate immune activation, enhances cytopathology, and drives convergent virus evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2407437121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2407437121.
87.
Shang, J.; Ye, G.; Shi, K.; et al. Structural basis of receptor recognition by SARS-CoV-2. Nature 2020, 581, 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2179-y.
88.
Xu, C.; Wang, Y.; Liu, C.; et al. Conformational dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike glycoprotein in complex with receptor ACE2 revealed by cryo-EM. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabe5575. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe5575.
89.
Othman, H.; Messaoud, H.B.; Khamessi, O.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Unlikely to Bind to Integrins via the Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) Motif of the Receptor Binding Domain: Evidence From Structural Analysis and Microscale Accelerated Molecular Dynamics. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2022, 9, 834857. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2022.834857.
90.
Zhang, J.; Xiao, T.; Cai, Y.; et al. Structure of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2021, 50, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2021.08.010.
91.
Chambers, P.; Pringle, C.R.; Easton, A.J. Heptad repeat sequences are located adjacent to hydrophobic regions in several types of virus fusion glycoproteins. J. Gen. Virol. 1990, 71, 3075–3080. https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-71-12-3075.
92.
Schütz, D.; Ruiz-Blanco, Y.B.; Münch, J.; et al. Peptide and peptide-based inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 entry. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020, 167, 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2020.11.007.
93.
Pletan, M.L.; Tsai, B. Non-enveloped virus membrane penetration: New advances leading to new insights. PLoS Pathog 2022, 18, e1010948. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010948.
94.
Woo, T.T.; Williams, J.M.; Tsai, B. How host ER membrane chaperones and morphogenic proteins support virusinfection. J. Cell Sci. 2023, 136, jcs261121. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.261121.
95.
Kumar, C.S.; Dey, D.; Ghosh, S.; et al. Breach: Host Membrane Penetration and Entry by Nonenveloped Viruses. Trends Microbiol. 2018, 26, 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2017.09.010.
96.
Herrmann, T.; Torres, R.; Salgado, E.N.; et al. Functional refolding of the penetration protein on a non-enveloped virus. Nature 2021, 590, 666–670. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03124-4.
97.
Suzuki, H. Rotavirus Replication: Gaps of Knowledge on Virus Entry and Morphogenesis. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 2019, 248, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.248.285.
98.
Zhang, X.F.; Tan, C.B.; Yao, Z.X.; et al. Adenovirus Infection-associated Central Nervous System Disease in Children. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2021, 40, 205–208. https://doi.org/10.1097/inf.0000000000003000.
99.
Luisoni, S.; Suomalainen, M.; Boucke, K.; et al. Co-option of Membrane Wounding Enables Virus Penetration into Cells. Cell Host Microbe 2015, 18, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2015.06.006.
100.
Garcia, M.A.; Nelson, W.J.; Chavez, N. Cell-Cell Junctions Organize Structural and Signaling Networks. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2018, 10, a029181. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a029181.
101.
Zihni, C.; Balda, M.S.; Matter, K. Signalling at tight junctions during epithelial differentiation and microbial pathogenesis. J. Cell Sci. 2014, 127, 3401–3413. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.145029.
102.
Zhu, Y.Z.; Qian, X.J.; Zhao, P.; et al. How hepatitis C virus invades hepatocytes: The mystery of viral entry. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 3457–3467. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i13.3457.
103.
Herfs, M.; Hubert, P.; Moutschen, M.; et al. Mucosal junctions: Open doorsto HPV and HIV infections? Trends Microbiol. 2011, 19, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2010.12.006.
104.
Dong, D.; Xie, W.; Liu, M. Alteration of cell junctions during viral infection. Thorac. Cancer 2020, 11, 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13344.
105.
Jansens, R.J.J.; Van den Broeck, W.; De Pelsmaeker, S.; et al. Pseudorabies Virus US3-Induced Tunneling Nanotubes Contain Stabilized Microtubules, Interact with Neighboring Cells via Cadherins, and Allow Intercellular Molecular Communication. J. Virol. 2017, 91, 00749-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00749-17.
106.
Sowinski, S.; Jolly, C.; Berninghausen, O.; et al. Membrane nanotubes physically connect T cells over long distances presenting a novel route for HIV-1 transmission. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 10, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1682.
107.
Xu, G.; Xu, S.; Shi, X.; et al. Intercellular transmission of Seneca Valley virus mediated by exosomes. Vet. Res. 2020, 51, 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-020-00812-x.
108.
Helenius, A. Virus Entry: Looking Back and Moving Forward. J. Mol. Biol. 2018, 430, 1853–1862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2018.03.034.
Issue
Volume 2, Issue 1How to Cite
Wang, Y., Yu, Q., Lin, S., Jiang, W., Qi, Z., Wang, L., Wu, L., Ma, R., Zhang, K., Chen, S., Xie, J., Zheng, L., Zhou, M., & Fu, Q. B. (2025). Key Factors in the Multiple Mechanisms of Virus Entry. Health and Metabolism, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.53941/hm.2025.100001
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
Copyright (c) 2025 by the authors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.