摘要
It is generally accepted that human influenza viruses preferentially bind to cell-surface glycoproteins/ glycolipids containing sialic acids in α2,6-linkage; while avian and equine influenza viruses preferentially bind to those containing sialic acids in α2,3-linkage. Even though this generalized view is accurate for H3 subtype isolates, it may not be accurate and absolute for all subtypes of influenza A viruses and, therefore, needs to be reevaluated carefully and realistically. Some of the studies published in major scientific journals on the subject of tissue tropism of influenza viruses are inconsistent and caused confusion in the scientific community. One of the reasons for the inconsistency is that most studies were quantitative descriptions of sialic acid receptor distributions based on lectin or influenza virus immunohistochemistry results with limited numbers of stained cells. In addition, recent studies indicate that α2,3- and α2,6-linked sialic acids are not the sole receptors determining tissue and host tropism of influenza viruses. In fact, determinants for tissue and host tropism of human, avian and animal influenza viruses are more complex than what has been generally accepted. Other factors, such as glycan topology, concentration of invading viruses, local density of receptors, lipid raft microdomains, coreceptors or sialic acid-independent receptors, may also be important. To more efficiently control the global spread of pandemic influenza such as the current circulating influenza A H1N1, it is crucial to clarify the determinants for tissue and host tropism of influenza viruses through quantitative analysis of experimental results. In this review, I will comment on some conflicting issues related to tissue and host tropism of influenza viruses, discuss the importance of quantitative analysis of lectin and influenza virus immunohistochemistry results and point out directions for future studies in this area, which should lead to a better understanding of tissue and host tropism of influenza viruses.
It is generally accepted that human influenza viruses preferentially bind to cell-surface glycoproteins/ glycolipids containing sialic acids in α2,6-linkage; while avian and equine influenza viruses preferentially bind to those containing sialic acids in α2,3-linkage. Even though this generalized view is accurate for H3 subtype isolates, it may not be accurate and absolute for all subtypes of influenza A viruses and, therefore, needs to be reevaluated carefully and realistically. Some of the studies published in major scientific journals on the subject of tissue tropism of influenza viruses are inconsistent and caused confusion in the scientific community. One of the reasons for the inconsistency is that most studies were quantitative descriptions of sialic acid receptor distributions based on lectin or influenza virus immunohistochemistry results with limited numbers of stained cells. In addition, recent studies indicate that α2,3- and α2,6-linked sialic acids are not the sole receptors determining tissue and host tropism of influenza viruses. In fact, determinants for tissue and host tropism of human, avian and animal influenza viruses are more complex than what has been generally accepted. Other factors, such as glycan topology, concentration of invading viruses, local density of receptors, lipid raft microdomains, coreceptors or sialic acid-independent receptors, may also be important. To more efficiently control the global spread of pandemic influenza such as the current circulating influenza A H1N1, it is crucial to clarify the determinants for tissue and host tropism of influenza viruses through quantitative analysis of experimental results. In this review, I will comment on some conflicting issues related to tissue and host tropism of influenza viruses, discuss the importance of quantitative analysis of lectin and influenza virus immunohistochemistry results and point out directions for future studies in this area, which should lead to a better understanding of tissue and host tropism of influenza viruses.
