Next Article in Journal
Development of a Propidium Monoazide-Based Viability Quantitative PCR Assay for Red Sea Bream Iridovirus Detection
Next Article in Special Issue
Spermidine-Eugenol Supplement Preserved Inflammation-Challenged Intestinal Cells by Stimulating Autophagy
Previous Article in Journal
Structure, Substrate Specificity and Role of Lon Protease in Bacterial Pathogenesis and Survival
Previous Article in Special Issue
Chrysin Induces Apoptosis via the MAPK Pathway and Regulates ERK/mTOR-Mediated Autophagy in MC-3 Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 4
10.3390/ijms24043423
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Viruses Binding to Host Receptors Interacts with Autophagy

by
Jinsung Yang
Department of Biochemistry and Convergence Medical Science, Institute of Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(4), 3423; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043423
Submission received: 29 November 2022 / Revised: 19 January 2023 / Accepted: 6 February 2023 / Published: 8 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Autophagy in Cell Survival and Death)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Viruses must cross the plasma membrane to infect cells, making them eager to overcome this barrier in order to replicate in hosts. They bind to cell surface receptors as the first step of initiating entry. Viruses can use several surface molecules that allow them to evade defense mechanisms. Various mechanisms are stimulated to defend against viruses upon their entry into cells. Autophagy, one of the defense systems, degrades cellular components to maintain homeostasis. The presence of viruses in the cytosol regulates autophagy; however, the mechanisms by which viral binding to receptors regulates autophagy have not yet been fully established. This review discusses recent findings on autophagy induced by interactions between viruses and receptors. It provides novel perspectives on the mechanism of autophagy as regulated by viruses.

1. Introduction

Viruses use hosts’ intracellular functions to multiply, so they must cross the cell membrane [1]. A viral infection is a complex process requiring a coordinated series of cell surface molecules for viruses to enter cells [2]. Viral entry begins with binding to the surface via adhesion factors such as cell surface glycans [3]. Afterward, viruses search for specific receptors and initiate entry [4,5]. This process often requires conformational changes in viral proteins and receptors, making the procedure highly organized [2]. The mechanisms for viral internalization are diverse; although some viruses share attachment factors, the mechanisms by which they are internalized differ from virus to virus. Compared to enveloped viruses invading via fusion, nonenveloped viruses enter cells via distinct and complicated processes [1].
Viruses that have entered cells begin to replicate and trigger a series of immune responses, ranging from an immediate innate immune system response to an adaptive immune system response [6]. Innate immune cells recognize and eliminate viruses [7]. Antigen-presenting cells engulf viral antigens and inform the lymph nodes of the existence of viruses in the cell [8]. Cytokines produced in the lymph nodes induce a variety of T helper (TH) cell responses [9,10,11]. Viral infections turn on not only innate immunity but also adaptive immunity by helping TH cells secrete antibodies from B cells [12]. Until now, many studies have been conducted on the signal transduction caused by the presence of intracellular viruses; however, little research has been conducted on the induced signaling when viruses interact with cell surface molecules.
The phenomenon of viruses binding to receptors is still an area of ongoing research. Signaling pathways triggered by virions binding to receptors need to be studied. Additionally, their effects on autophagy are complex and poorly understood. A link should be made between the binding of virions to surface molecules and triggered intracellular signaling pathways. Therefore, this review provides an overview of how virus–host interactions affect autophagy. The recent findings on autophagy regulated by ligands will be explained. Future directions of autophagy research in virus–host interactions will be discussed. Understanding these relationships will shed light on viral research.

2. Autophagy

2.1. Overview of Autophagy

Autophagy is a conserved degradation process for maintaining homeostasis [13]. Autophagy degrades cellular components, including long-lived proteins and damaged organelles in lysosomes. Under starvation, autophagy replenishes building blocks in case molecules are needed urgently [14]. In addition, the autophagic pathway is a defense mechanism against harmful substances, including viruses [15]. Eukaryotic cells degrade undesirable components via microautophagy, macroautophagy, and chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA) [14,16] (Figure 1). Microautophagy is a non-selective degradation process with respect to lysosomes that directly engulfs intracellular components [17]. CMA degrades proteins that are selectively dependent on lysosomal-associated membrane protein 2A (LAMP2A) with the KFERQ sequence [18]. Macroautophagy utilizes autophagosomes to eradicate substances selectively and non-selectively [19]. Macroautophagy is best-characterized and referred to hereafter as autophagy.

2.2. The Mechanism of Autophagy Initiation

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a serine/threonine kinase that senses nutrient levels and activates cell growth and proliferation [20] (Figure 2). mTOR inhibits autophagy by phosphorylating ULK1 and ATG13 [21]. Under starvation, mTOR is inactivated, resulting in the formation of a ULK1 complex [22]. Another nutrient sensor, AMP-activated kinase (AMPK), phosphorylates different sites on mTOR and ULK1 in addition to regulating autophagy [21]. Activated ULK1 complexes (ULK1, FIP200, Atg13, and Atg101) phosphorylate Beclin1 and activate the formation of the Beclin1 complex (Beclin1, VPS34, VPS15, and Atg14) [20,22,23]. VPS34 is a lipid kinase that phosphorylates the three hydroxyl groups of phosphatidylinositol (PtdIns) and changes into phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate (PtdIns3P) [23,24,25]. Enriched PtdIns3P by VPS34 [26] is the starting point of phagophore formation. PtdIns3P binds to the WD repeat domain phosphoinositide-interacting protein (WIPI) [25]. Atg12 is a ubiquitin-like protein that is conjugated and activated by Atg7 (E1 ubiquitin-activating enzyme) and Atg10 (E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme) [27]. Activated Atg12 is conjugated to Atg5, and the complex binds to ATG16L [28]. The Atg12–Atg5–Atg16L complex is recruited to WIPI, which is bound to PtdIn3P. The recruitment enhances the elongation of phagophores. Meanwhile, light chain 3 (LC3) is cleaved into LC3-I by the Atg4B protease [29]. E1 Atg7 and E2 Atg3 combine LC3-I with phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) to form LC3-II [30]. The lapidated LC3-II binds to the phagophore and is recruited for the membranes to form autophagosomes [31]. After forming the autophagosome, Atg14 binds to the SNARE complex (sytaxin17, SNAP29, and VAMP8) and induces autophagosome–lysosome fusion [32,33].

3. Viruses Interacting with Cell Surface Receptors, Triggering Autophagy

Viruses use strategies to enter cells, bind to receptors on the cell surface, and undergo endocytosis [34]. Thus, the binding between a virus and its receptors is considered the first gateway for infecting cells. During the viral infection of cells, the autophagic pathway is regulated by the interaction between a virus and its receptor. It should be noted that the receptors mentioned here are viral receptors on the cell surface and not autophagosome receptors such as p62/SQSTM1.

3.1. Inducing Autophagy via the CD46-Cyt-1/GOPC Pathway

CD46 is a protein ubiquitously expressed in various human tissues [35]. CD46 binds to C3b/C4b in order to regulate the complement system of innate immunity [36,37]. CD46 expresses four isoforms in most tissues. The gene expressing CD46 is located at chromosome 1 q3.2 and forms four isoforms via alternative splicing [38]. The extracellular domain contains four short consensus repeats (SCR domain) and alternatively spliced serine/threonine/proline regions (STP domain). Depending on the alternative splicing, the number of STP domains (1 to 3) is determined. The rest of CD46 has a transmembrane domain and a cytoplasmic tail. The isoforms of the cytoplasmic tail are generated from exon 13 and 13/14 by alternative splicing. CD46 has either one of them as an intracellular tail [36].
CD46 is called a pathogen’s magnet [39]. CD46 is the receptor of the measles virus [40], adenovirus [41,42,43,44], herpesvirus 6 [45,46], cytomegalovirus [47], bovine viral diarrhea virus [48], atypical porcine pestivirus [49], and bacterial group A Streptococcus [50]. Various pathogens aberrantly bind to and internalize multiple domains of CD46 (Table 1). Of the pathogens not listed, the binding sites are not mapped yet.
The attenuated measles virus binds to CD46 and is internalized into cells, but the pathogenic measles virus binds to CD150 rather than CD46. The binding of the attenuated measles virus to CD46 induces autophagy. However, autophagy is not activated when the pathogenic measles virus binds to CD150. The binding of the attenuated measles virus to CD46 activates the CD46-Cyt-1/GOPC (Golgi-associated PDZ and containing a coiled-coil motif) pathway [39]. GOPC is a scaffold protein with a PDZ and a coiled-coil domain (CC). It interacts with Cyt-1 via the PDZ domain. GOPC then binds to Beclin1 through the CC domain and interacts with Beclin1-VPS34. This interaction initiates the formation of autophagic vesicles and induces autophagy [51].
CD46 initiates autophagy upon association with the measles virus as well as group A Streptococcus. This suggests that CD46 has the potential to induce autophagy when combined with other pathogens; therefore, other viruses with unidentified binding with respect to CD46 are highly likely to cause autophagy. However, what is interesting is that when a pathogen infects, autophagy is initiated to eliminate the pathogen. During virus replication, autophagy is activated to complete the replication of viruses by maintaining the state of the cell [52]. From the perspective of pathogens, it would be interesting to see how autophagy affects infections.
Table
Table 1. Pathogens binding to CD46.
Table 1. Pathogens binding to CD46.
Binding Domain in CD46LigandsReference
Short consensus repeats 1 (SCR1)Measles virus
Adenovirus		[53,54,55]
Short consensus repeats 2 (SCR2)Measles virus[53,56]
Adenovirus[55]
Human herpesvirus 6[57]
Short consensus repeats 3 (SCR3)Human herpesvirus 6[57,58]

3.2. Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) Launch Autophagy in MyD88-Dependent Manner

3.2.1. TLRs Recognize the Components of Viruses

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are transmembrane proteins and are pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) [59,60]. PRRs recognize the pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) of pathogens as well as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) when tissue is damaged [61]. Various viruses carry PAMPs and bind to TLRs that activate inflammatory and immune responses [62].
TLRs consist of an extracellular domain, a transmembrane α-helix domain, and a cytoplasmic signaling domain [63]. The extracellular domain consists of a leucine-rich repeat (LRR) motif consisting of 20–30 amino acids. The feature of an LRR is a motif with an LxxLxLxxNxL sequence [63]. This extracellular domain recognizes PAMPs and DAMPs [64]. The transmembrane α-helix domain consists of a single transmembrane helix. The cytoplasmic signaling domain includes a toll/interleukin 1 receptor (IL-1R) homology (TIR) domain. The intracellular signal transduction from TLR occurs in the TIR domain [65].
TLRs are expressed in immune cells, such as dendrite cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and lymphocytes, as well as non-immune cells, such as fibroblast cells or epithelial cells [66]. TLRs are located on the cell surface and in the membranes of subcellular organelles inside cells. TLR3, TLR7, TLR8, TLR9, TLR11, TLR12, and TLR13 are located intracellularly [66]. When intracellular TLRs recognize viral PAMPs (e.g., viral dsRNA, viral ssRNA), they activate signaling pathways for inducing immune responses within cells. It has been well-studied that TLR proteins located in the endosome directly or indirectly recognize PAMPs. The PAMPs bound by the TLRs activate the interferon pathway inside the cell and cause interleukin secretions in order to induce an antiviral immune response [67].
TLRs on the cell surface include TLR1, TLR2, TLR4, TLR5, TLR6, and TLR10 [66]. TLRs on the cell surface are transported from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) to the plasma membrane via the golgi apparatus [60,68]. TLR2, TLR4, and TLR10 can recognize the proteins (e.g., glycoproteins) of the outer shell of the virus [69,70,71]. Cell surface TLRs also initiate interferon- and interleukin-mediated immune responses, resulting in antiviral responses [72]. This review will focus on TLRs localized on cell surfaces.

3.2.2. Viral Interactions with TLRs Lead to the Initiation of Autophagy

TLR2 is the best-characterized receptor, along with TLR4, among TLRs. TLR2 recognizes several pathogens, such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. TLR2 functions as a homodimer or heterodimer (TLR2/TLR1 and TLR2/TLR6). Homodimers recognize lipopolysaccharides (LPSs), porins, lipoproteins, lipoteichoic acid, the peptidoglycan of bacteria, glycoproteins, and the hemagglutinin of viruses. TLR2 and TLR1 recognize bacterial triacylated lipopeptides. TLR2 and TLR6 recognize the glycoproteins of viruses, diacylated lipopeptides, and the lipoteichoic acid of bacteria in addition to the zymosan of fungi [73]. It is known that TLR2 homodimers do not transduce signals into cells, although the reason for this is still unclear [74].
Cell surface TLRs are involved in infections with several viruses (Table 2). TLR2 interacts with the envelope fusion protein F of respiratory syncytial viruses (RSVs) [75], measles virus [76], hepatitis C virus [77], and hepatitis B virus [78]. TLR4 interacts with the H protein of measles virus [76], the glycoprotein B/H of cytomegalovirus (CMV) [79], the glycoprotein gH/gL/gB of herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 [80].
TLR2 and TLR4 induce intracellular signaling in a myeloid differentiation primary response 88 (MyD88)-dependent manner [90]. Myd88-adaptor-like (MAL) is required to bring MyD88 to TLR2 [91]. The TIR-domain-containing adapter-inducing interferon β (TRIF)-related adapter molecule (TRAM), MAL, and TRIF are required to bring MyD88 to TLR4 [92]. The activation of the MyD88-dependent pathway by cell surface TLRs is mediated by nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) and promotes the expression of inflammatory cytokines [93]. Intracellular TLRs induce antiviral action via interferon signaling pathways mediated by TRIF or MyD88 [94].
Cell surface TLRs activate the autophagy process via adaptor proteins [95]. TLR3, 4, and 7, stimulated by viral binding, bind to the adaptor proteins (MyD88 and/or TRIF) [96,97]. This interaction enhances the binding between adaptor proteins and Beclin 1 [97]. The binding regulates the binding affinity between Bcl-2 and Beclin 1, and Bcl-2 is dissociated [98]. Afterwards, Beclin 1 binding to VPS34 and other Atgs initiates autophagy [99]. HSV-1 induces autophagy rapidly after infection via TLR2-MyD88. In addition, MyD88-deficient THP-1 cells fail to induce autophagy despite infections with HSV-1 [90]. CMV infection showed a rapid increase in the production of lapidated LC3-II, a well-known autophagy marker [100].
Further studies are needed to clarify how the interaction between viruses and TLRs causes autophagy. Fundamentally, the function of TLRs is to induce an antiviral response during viral infection. It will be essential to interpret the role of autophagy triggered by TLRs in the early stage of infection.

3.3. Integrins Are Possible Viral Receptors Causing Autophagy

Integrin is an adhesion molecule that plays a role in tissue formation and cell migration via cell-to-cell binding. Integrins function as adhesion molecules by binding to fibronectin, laminins, collagens, and various proteins in the extracellular environment. It is also one of the cell surface proteins responsible for communication between cells. Integrins are composed of an α-chain and a β-chain, and they function by forming a heterodimer. Integrin consists of a large extracellular domain, a single transmembrane domain, and a small intracellular domain. Integrin transmits signals from the inside to outside and signals by ligand binding from the outside to inside. Integrin undergoes conformational changes according to the degree of activation [101]. Integrins are bent in the inactive state; in the activated state, the head portion is open and extended. The binding partner modulates the activity of integrins from both sides. Therefore, inside and outside signaling processes are linked with integrins. The affinity with ligands varies according to intracellular signaling. The ligand binding site becomes accessible, and the binding affinity for ligands increases. Integrin binds to a short ligand motif and transmits a signal. αvβ3, αvβ5, αvβ6, α5β1, and αIIbβ3 recognize the RGD sequence, and α2β1 recognizes the DGE sequence.
The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 has an RGD sequence, and the possibility of binding to the integrin has been reported [102]. Recently, it has been revealed that integrin can be a receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the primary receptor, but β1 and β3 integrins can also be co-receptors. T777, S778, T779, and Y785 near the LC3-interacting region (LIR) of β3 integrin are phosphorylated. Proteins with an LIR are involved in regulating autophagosome formation and maturation. Each of the phosphorylated residues cause integrin to bind distinctively to LC3. Comparing the binding affinity with LC3, T777 has the lowest binding affinity, followed by T779. For S778 and Y785, the affinity is similar. The affinity is highest when T779 and Y785 are double-phosphorylated. Therefore, the differential binding of integrin and LC3 according to the phosphorylation of integrin suggests the possibility that integrin plays a large role in forming autophagosomes.
SARS-CoV-2 binding to integrin β1 is crucial for the infection [103,104]. The conformational states of integrin β1 shift depending on the binding affinity; however, the effect of the binding between SARS-CoV-2 and integrin β1 on autophagy is elusive. Other pathogens binding to integrin β1 trigger autophagy. Integrin α5β1 is a receptor of fibronectin, which binds to the FbaA of group A Streptococcus (GAS) [105]. The infection of GAS activates the autophagic pathway dependent on α5β1 and not on TLR2 and TLR4. FbaA binding results in autophagy by inactivating mTOR. Yersinia enterocolitica on the membrane activates autophagy dependent on β1 [106].
Integrins activate autophagy by interacting with the LIR motif or by suppressing the mTOR pathway. The β3 integrin has an LIR motif, but not all integrins have the motive. Moreover, integrin-binding partners in the intracellular domain can have LIR motifs and mediate the interaction with LC3. Other pathways can be involved, such as the interaction with the Beclin-1 complex. In addition, how integrins inactivate the AKT-mTOR pathway is poorly understood. Unraveling the signal transduction will be the key in virus–autophagy research (Table 3).

3.4. Other Receptors Involved in Inducing Autophagy

The viral protein H of peste des petits ruminants virus binding to NECTIN4 induces autophagy via the AKT-mTOR pathway [153]. The gp41 subunit of human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) envelope glycoproteins (Env) binds to C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4), and this interaction triggers the activation of autophagy [154,155]. The interaction between gp120 and the primary receptor of HIV-1, CD4, is not directly involved in the process. The question of how the interplay between gp41 and CXCR4 activates autophagy has not been resolved. Glycoprotein G on the vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) attaches to receptors, and the interaction begins the process of the virus entering a host cell via endocytosis [156]. In Drosophila S2 cells, autophagy is induced by UV-inactivated VSV or VSV-G virus-like particles. The glycoprotein itself is enough to activate autophagy by binding to toll-7 [157].

4. Conclusions

What is the function of autophagy regulated by viral binding? This is a fascinating and important question that assists in determining why autophagy is controlled when a virus hijacks the function of a receptor and enters the cell. Intracellular substances are broken down, and cells refill the building blocks during autophagy. The autophagy activated by viral binding induces the preparation process associated with entry and multiplication. In addition, it can be expected that the quality control of old organelles or proteins can be degraded to optimize the condition of cells.
On the other hand, from the perspective of cells, as the virus binds it can transmit a warning signal to the cell. Therefore, as soon as a virion touches the cell, the cell is ready to eliminate the virus via autophagy or autophagy-induced apoptosis. The molecular mechanism of viral binding autophagy is complicated to understand with the current knowledge, since cells respond differently from viruses; there is still a long way to go in understanding the meaning, and more research is needed.
Viruses use various cell surface molecules that are essential for maintaining cell homeostasis. Each ligand induces a different reaction within a cell, such as cell proliferation, cell differentiation, and cell migration; however, how these distinct signaling pathways are activated is still poorly understood. The binding of a virus to a receptor transmits other signals into the cell. Autophagy research, induced by a virus binding to a receptor, has not been sufficiently studied. Establishing the role of autophagy in viral binding will help in understanding why autophagy is induced. Moreover, although receptors are not primarily involved in immune responses, such as integrins, which are involved in the entry of many viruses, further studies are needed with respect to receptors that induce autophagy upon viral binding.
Antiviral drugs are important in inhibiting viral infections and slowing their spread. Antiviral drugs can target each step of a virus’s life cycle. Understanding the mechanisms of viral infections is essential to developing antiviral drugs. Viruses and receptors are useful targets for antiviral drugs, which block binding from occurring outside a cell. To date, seven substances have been approved by the FDA against four types of viruses (RSV, HSV, HIV, and varicella-zoster virus) [158]. During the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, binding inhibitors for coronaviruses were proposed. Peptides derived from the binding site of the ACE2 receptor were suggested and can prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection [104,159]. It is crucial to develop antiviral drugs using this idea because some viruses share the same receptors. The drugs can alter cell functions by manipulating ligands or receptors without passing through cell membranes. The drugs are not only important for patient treatments but also have a significant impact on various intracellular signal transduction studies, including autophagy caused by viral binding. Understanding viral entry mechanisms and their effects on autophagy will introduce new methods for treating viruses and various diseases.

Funding

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant, funded by the Korean Government (MSIT) (2022R1A2C1092943). This work was supported under the framework of the international cooperation program managed by the National Research Foundation of Korea (2022K1A3A1A18079735). This research was supported by a grant from the Institute of Health Sciences of Gyeongsang National University, IHS GNU-2022-01. This work was supported by funding from the research promotion program, Gyeongsang National University, 2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The figures were created with biorender.com, and accessed on 26 November 2022 and 17 January 2023. The references were processed by Endnote 9.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koehler, M.; Delguste, M.; Sieben, C.; Gillet, L.; Alsteens, D. Initial Step of Virus Entry: Virion Binding to Cell-Surface Glycans. Annu. Rev. Virol. 2020, 7, 143–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Boulant, S.; Stanifer, M.; Lozach, P.-Y. Dynamics of Virus-Receptor Interactions in Virus Binding, Signaling, and Endocytosis. Viruses 2015, 7, 2794–2815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Koehler, M.; Aravamudhan, P.; Guzman-Cardozo, C.; Dumitru, A.C.; Yang, J.; Gargiulo, S.; Soumillion, P.; Dermody, T.S.; Alsteens, D. Glycan-mediated enhancement of reovirus receptor binding. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Koehler, M.; Petitjean, S.J.L.; Yang, J.; Aravamudhan, P.; Somoulay, X.; Giudice, C.L.; Poncin, M.A.; Dumitru, A.C.; Dermody, T.S.; Alsteens, D. Reovirus directly engages integrin to recruit clathrin for entry into host cells. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Smith, A.E.; Helenius, A. How Viruses Enter Animal Cells. Science 2004, 304, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Levine, B.; Kroemer, G. Autophagy in the Pathogenesis of Disease. Cell 2008, 132, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Levine, B.; Mizushima, N.; Virgin, H.W. Autophagy in immunity and inflammation. Nature 2011, 469, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Choi, Y.; Bowman, J.W.; Jung, J.U. Autophagy during viral infection—A double-edged sword. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 341–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, M.S.; Kim, Y.-J. Signaling Pathways Downstream of Pattern-Recognition Receptors and Their Cross Talk. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2007, 76, 447–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Swain, S.L.; McKinstry, K.K.; Strutt, T.M. Expanding roles for CD4+ T cells in immunity to viruses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2012, 12, 136–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Luckheeram, R.V.; Zhou, R.; Verma, A.D.; Xia, B. CD4+ T Cells: Differentiation and Functions. Clin. Dev. Immunol. 2012, 2012, 925135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rouse, B.T.; Sehrawat, S. Immunity and immunopathology to viruses: What decides the outcome? Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2010, 10, 514–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Levine, B.; Kroemer, G. Biological Functions of Autophagy Genes: A Disease Perspective. Cell 2019, 176, 11–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mizushima, N.; Levine, B. Autophagy in Human Diseases. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1564–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Deretic, V.; Saitoh, T.; Akira, S. Autophagy in infection, inflammation and immunity. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2013, 13, 722–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mizushima, N.; Yoshimori, T.; Ohsumi, Y. The Role of Atg Proteins in Autophagosome Formation. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2011, 27, 107–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mijaljica, D.; Prescott, M.; Devenish, R.J. Microautophagy in mammalian cells: Revisiting a 40-year-old conundrum. Autophagy 2011, 7, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Orenstein, S.J.; Cuervo, A.M. Chaperone-mediated autophagy: Molecular mechanisms and physiological relevance. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2010, 21, 719–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Feng, Y.; He, D.; Yao, Z.; Klionsky, D.J. The machinery of macroautophagy. Cell Res. 2014, 24, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jung, C.H.; Jun, C.B.; Ro, S.-H.; Kim, Y.-M.; Otto, N.M.; Cao, J.; Kundu, M.; Kim, D.-H. ULK-Atg13-FIP200 Complexes Mediate mTOR Signaling to the Autophagy Machinery. Mol. Biol. Cell 2009, 20, 1992–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kim, J.; Kundu, M.; Viollet, B.; Guan, K.-L. AMPK and mTOR regulate autophagy through direct phosphorylation of Ulk1. Nat. Cell Biol. 2011, 13, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hosokawa, N.; Hara, T.; Kaizuka, T.; Kishi, C.; Takamura, A.; Miura, Y.; Iemura, S.-I.; Natsume, T.; Takehana, K.; Yamada, N.; et al. Nutrient-dependent mTORC1 Association with the ULK1–Atg13–FIP200 Complex Required for Autophagy. Mol. Biol. Cell 2009, 20, 1981–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Russell, R.C.; Tian, Y.; Yuan, H.; Park, H.W.; Chang, Y.-Y.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.; Neufeld, T.P.; Dillin, A.; Guan, K.-L. ULK1 induces autophagy by phosphorylating Beclin-1 and activating VPS34 lipid kinase. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 15, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Di Bartolomeo, S.; Corazzari, M.; Nazio, F.; Oliverio, S.; Lisi, G.; Antonioli, M.; Pagliarini, V.; Matteoni, S.; Fuoco, C.; Giunta, L.; et al. The dynamic interaction of AMBRA1 with the dynein motor complex regulates mammalian autophagy. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 191, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Axe, E.L.; Walker, S.A.; Manifava, M.; Chandra, P.; Roderick, H.L.; Habermann, A.; Griffiths, G.; Ktistakis, N.T. Autophagosome formation from membrane compartments enriched in phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate and dynamically connected to the endoplasmic reticulum. J. Cell Biol. 2008, 182, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Matsunaga, K.; Saitoh, T.; Tabata, K.; Omori, H.; Satoh, T.; Kurotori, N.; Maejima, I.; Shirahama-Noda, K.; Ichimura, T.; Isobe, T.; et al. Two Beclin 1-binding proteins, Atg14L and Rubicon, reciprocally regulate autophagy at different stages. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009, 11, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nakatogawa, H.; Suzuki, K.; Kamada, Y.; Ohsumi, Y. Dynamics and diversity in autophagy mechanisms: Lessons from yeast. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fujita, N.; Itoh, T.; Omori, H.; Fukuda, M.; Noda, T.; Yoshimori, T. The Atg16L Complex Specifies the Site of LC3 Lipidation for Membrane Biogenesis in Autophagy. Mol. Biol. Cell 2008, 19, 2092–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Satoo, K.; Noda, N.N.; Kumeta, H.; Fujioka, Y.; Mizushima, N.; Ohsumi, Y.; Inagaki, F. The structure of Atg4B–LC3 complex reveals the mechanism of LC3 processing and delipidation during autophagy. EMBO J. 2009, 28, 1341–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gui, X.; Yang, H.; Li, T.; Tan, X.; Shi, P.; Li, M.; Du, F.; Chen, Z.J. Autophagy induction via STING trafficking is a primordial function of the cGAS pathway. Nature 2019, 567, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weidberg, H.; Shvets, E.; Shpilka, T.; Shimron, F.; Shinder, V.; Elazar, Z. LC3 and GATE-16/GABARAP subfamilies are both essential yet act differently in autophagosome biogenesis. EMBO J. 2010, 29, 1792–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ding, B.; Zhang, G.; Yang, X.; Zhang, S.; Chen, L.; Yan, Q.; Xu, M.; Banerjee, A.K.; Chen, M. Phosphoprotein of Human Parainfluenza Virus Type 3 Blocks Autophagosome-Lysosome Fusion to Increase Virus Production. Cell Host Microbe 2014, 15, 564–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Itakura, E.; Kishi-Itakura, C.; Mizushima, N. The Hairpin-type Tail-Anchored SNARE Syntaxin 17 Targets to Autophagosomes for Fusion with Endosomes/Lysosomes. Cell 2012, 151, 1256–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Maginnis, M.S.; Mainou, B.A.; Derdowski, A.; Johnson, E.M.; Zent, R.; Dermody, T.S. NPXY Motifs in the β1 Integrin Cytoplasmic Tail Are Required for Functional Reovirus Entry. J. Virol. 2008, 82, 3181–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Elvington, M.; Liszewski, M.; Atkinson, J. CD46 and Oncologic Interactions: Friendly Fire against Cancer. Antibodies 2020, 9, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Liszewski, M.K.; Post, T.W.; Atkinson, J.P. Membrane Cofactor Protein (MCP or CD46): Newest Member of the Regulators of Complement Activation Gene Cluster. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 1991, 9, 431–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McNearney, T.; Ballard, L.; Seya, T.; Atkinson, J.P. Membrane cofactor protein of complement is present on human fibroblast, epithelial, and endothelial cells. J. Clin. Investig. 1989, 84, 538–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bora, N.S.; Lublin, D.M.; Kumar, B.V.; Hockett, R.D.; Holers, V.M.; Atkinson, J.P. Structural gene for human membrane cofactor protein (MCP) of complement maps to within 100 kb of the 3′ end of the C3b/C4b receptor gene. J. Exp. Med. 1989, 169, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cattaneo, R. Four Viruses, Two Bacteria, and One Receptor: Membrane Cofactor Protein (CD46) as Pathogens’ Magnet. J. Virol. 2004, 78, 4385–4388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Buchholz, C.J.; Koller, D.; Devaux, P.; Mumenthaler, C.; Schneider-Schaulies, J.; Braun, W.; Gerlier, D.; Cattaneo, R. Mapping of the Primary Binding Site of Measles Virus to Its Receptor CD46. J. Biol. Chem. 1997, 272, 22072–22079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sirena, D.; Lilienfeld, B.; Eisenhut, M.; Kälin, S.; Boucke, K.; Beerli, R.R.; Vogt, L.; Ruedl, C.; Bachmann, M.F.; Greber, U.F.; et al. The Human Membrane Cofactor CD46 Is a Receptor for Species B Adenovirus Serotype 3. J. Virol. 2004, 78, 4454–4462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Roelvink, P.W.; Lizonova, A.; Lee, J.G.M.; Li, Y.; Bergelson, J.M.; Finberg, R.W.; Brough, D.E.; Kovesdi, I.; Wickham, T.J. The Coxsackievirus-Adenovirus Receptor Protein Can Function as a Cellular Attachment Protein for Adenovirus Serotypes from Subgroups A, C, D, E, and F. J. Virol. 1998, 72, 7909–7915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wu, E.; Trauger, S.A.; Pache, L.; Mullen, T.-M.; Von Seggern, D.J.; Siuzdak, G.; Nemerow, G.R. Membrane Cofactor Protein Is a Receptor for Adenoviruses Associated with Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis. J. Virol. 2004, 78, 3897–3905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gaggar, A.; Shayakhmetov, D.M.; Lieber, A. CD46 is a cellular receptor for group B adenoviruses. Nat. Med. 2003, 9, 1408–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mori, Y.; Seya, T.; Huang, H.L.; Akkapaiboon, P.; Dhepakson, P.; Yamanishi, K. Human Herpesvirus 6 Variant A but Not Variant B Induces Fusion from Without in a Variety of Human Cells through a Human Herpesvirus 6 Entry Receptor, CD46. J. Virol. 2002, 76, 6750–6761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Santoro, F.; Greenstone, H.L.; Insinga, A.; Liszewski, M.K.; Atkinson, J.P.; Lusso, P.; Berger, E.A. Interaction of Glycoprotein H of Human Herpesvirus 6 with the Cellular Receptor CD46. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 25964–25969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Stein, K.R.; Gardner, T.J.; Hernandez, R.E.; Kraus, T.A.; Duty, J.A.; Ubarretxena-Belandia, I.; Moran, T.M.; Tortorella, D. CD46 facilitates entry and dissemination of human cytomegalovirus. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Maurer, K.; Krey, T.; Moennig, V.; Thiel, H.-J.; Rümenapf, T. CD46 Is a Cellular Receptor for Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus. J. Virol. 2004, 78, 1792–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cagatay, G.N.; Antos, A.; Suckstorff, O.; Isken, O.; Tautz, N.; Becher, P.; Postel, A. Porcine Complement Regulatory Protein CD46 Is a Major Receptor for Atypical Porcine Pestivirus but Not for Classical Swine Fever Virus. J. Virol. 2021, 95, e02186-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Okada, N.; Liszewski, M.K.; Atkinson, J.P.; Caparon, M. Membrane cofactor protein (CD46) is a keratinocyte receptor for the M protein of the group A streptococcus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92, 2489–2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Joubert, P.-E.; Meiffren, G.; Grégoire, I.P.; Pontini, G.; Richetta, C.; Flacher, M.; Azocar, O.; Vidalain, P.-O.; Vidal, M.; Lotteau, V.; et al. Autophagy Induction by the Pathogen Receptor CD46. Cell Host Microbe 2009, 6, 354–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Leonardi, L.; Sibéril, S.; Alifano, M.; Cremer, I.; Joubert, P.-E. Autophagy Modulation by Viral Infections Influences Tumor Development. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 743780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Dörig, R.E.; Marcil, A.; Chopra, A.; Richardson, C.D. The human CD46 molecule is a receptor for measles virus (Edmonston strain). Cell 1993, 75, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Navaratnarajah, C.K.; Leonard, V.H.J.; Cattaneo, R. Measles Virus Glycoprotein Complex Assembly, Receptor Attachment, and Cell Entry. Curr. Top Microbiol. Immunol. 2009, 329, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Stasiak, A.C.; Stehle, T. Human adenovirus binding to host cell receptors: A structural view. Med. Microbiol. Immunol. 2019, 209, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Maisner, A.; Alvarez, J.; Liszewski, M.K.; Atkinson, D.J.; Atkinson, J.P.; Herrler, G. The N-glycan of the SCR 2 region is essential for membrane cofactor protein (CD46) to function as a measles virus receptor. J. Virol. 1996, 70, 4973–4977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Greenstone, H.L.; Santoro, F.; Lusso, P.; Berger, E.A. Human Herpesvirus 6 and Measles Virus Employ Distinct CD46 Domains for Receptor Function. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 39112–39118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kallstrom, H.; Gill, D.B.; Albiger, B.; Liszewski, M.K.; Atkinson, J.P.; Jonsson, A.-B. Attachment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to the cellular pilus receptor CD46: Identification of domains important for bacterial adherence. Cell. Microbiol. 2001, 3, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Akira, S.; Uematsu, S.; Takeuchi, O. Pathogen recognition and innate immunity. Cell 2006, 124, 783–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Fitzgerald, K.A.; Kagan, J.C. Toll-like Receptors and the Control of Immunity. Cell 2020, 180, 1044–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Medzhitov, R. Toll-like receptors and innate immunity. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2001, 1, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Iwasaki, A.; Medzhitov, R. Regulation of adaptive immunity by the innate immune system. Science 2010, 327, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Asami, J.; Shimizu, T. Structural and functional understanding of the toll-like receptors. Protein Sci. 2021, 30, 761–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Botos, I.; Segal, D.M.; Davies, D.R. The Structural Biology of Toll-like Receptors. Structure 2011, 19, 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Song, D.H.; Lee, J.-O. Sensing of microbial molecular patterns by Toll-like receptors. Immunol. Rev. 2012, 250, 216–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kawasaki, T.; Kawai, T. Toll-Like Receptor Signaling Pathways. Front. Immunol. 2014, 5, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Janeway, C.A.; Medzhitov, R. Innate Immune Recognition. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2002, 20, 197–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, B.L.; E Moon, J.; Shu, J.H.; Yuan, L.; Newman, Z.R.; Schekman, R.; Barton, G.M. UNC93B1 mediates differential trafficking of endosomal TLRs. eLife 2013, 2, e00291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kang, J.Y.; Nan, X.; Jin, M.S.; Youn, S.-J.; Ryu, Y.H.; Mah, S.; Han, S.H.; Lee, H.; Paik, S.-G.; Lee, J.-O. Recognition of Lipopeptide Patterns by Toll-like Receptor 2-Toll-like Receptor 6 Heterodimer. Immunity 2009, 31, 873–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Poltorak, A.; He, X.; Smirnova, I.; Liu, M.-Y.; Van Huffel, C.; Du, X.; Birdwell, D.; Alejos, E.; Silva, M.; Galanos, C.; et al. Defective LPS Signaling in C3H/HeJ and C57BL/10ScCr Mice: Mutations in Tlr4 Gene. Science 1998, 282, 2085–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Fore, F.; Indriputri, C.; Mamutse, J.; Nugraha, J. TLR10 and Its Unique Anti-Inflammatory Properties and Potential Use as a Target in Therapeutics. Immune Netw. 2020, 20, e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Perkins, D.J.; Vogel, S.N. Space and time: New considerations about the relationship between Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and type I interferons (IFNs). Cytokine 2015, 74, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Jin, M.S.; Kim, S.E.; Heo, J.Y.; Lee, M.E.; Kim, H.M.; Paik, S.-G.; Lee, H.; Lee, J.-O. Crystal Structure of the TLR1-TLR2 Heterodimer Induced by Binding of a Tri-Acylated Lipopeptide. Cell 2007, 130, 1071–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ozinsky, A.; Underhill, D.M.; Fontenot, J.D.; Hajjar, A.M.; Smith, K.D.; Wilson, C.B.; Schroeder, L.; Aderem, A. The repertoire for pattern recognition of pathogens by the innate immune system is defined by cooperation between Toll-like receptors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 13766–13771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Murawski, M.R.; Bowen, G.N.; Cerny, A.M.; Anderson, L.J.; Haynes, L.M.; Tripp, R.A.; Kurt-Jones, E.A.; Finberg, R.W. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Activates Innate Immunity through Toll-Like Receptor 2. J. Virol. 2009, 83, 1492–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bieback, K.; Lien, E.; Klagge, I.M.; Avota, E.; Schneider-Schaulies, J.; Duprex, W.P.; Wagner, H.; Kirschning, C.J.; ter Meulen, V.; Schneider-Schaulies, S. Hemagglutinin Protein of Wild-Type Measles Virus Activates Toll-Like Receptor 2 Signaling. J. Virol. 2002, 76, 8729–8736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hoffmann, M.; Zeisel, M.B.; Jilg, N.; Paranhos-Baccalà, G.; Stoll-Keller, F.; Wakita, T.; Hafkemeyer, P.; Blum, H.E.; Barth, H.; Henneke, P.; et al. Toll-Like Receptor 2 Senses Hepatitis C Virus Core Protein but Not Infectious Viral Particles. J. Innate Immun. 2009, 1, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, Z.; Trippler, M.; Real, C.I.; Werner, M.; Luo, X.; Schefczyk, S.; Kemper, T.; Anastasiou, O.E.; Ladiges, Y.; Treckmann, J.; et al. Hepatitis B Virus Particles Activate Toll-Like Receptor 2 Signaling Initially Upon Infection of Primary Human Hepatocytes. Hepatology 2020, 72, 829–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yew, K.-H.; Carpenter, C.; Duncan, R.S.; Harrison, C.J. Human Cytomegalovirus Induces TLR4 Signaling Components in Monocytes Altering TIRAP, TRAM and Downstream Interferon-Beta and TNF-Alpha Expression. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e44500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Liu, H.; Chen, K.; Feng, W.; Wu, X.; Li, H. TLR4-MyD88/Mal-NF-kB Axis Is Involved in Infection of HSV-2 in Human Cervical Epithelial Cells. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e80327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Compton, T.; Kurt-Jones, E.A.; Boehme, K.W.; Belko, J.; Latz, E.; Golenbock, D.T.; Finberg, R.W. Human Cytomegalovirus Activates Inflammatory Cytokine Responses via CD14 and Toll-Like Receptor 2. J. Virol. 2003, 77, 4588–4596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Boehme, K.W.; Guerrero, M.; Compton, T. Human Cytomegalovirus Envelope Glycoproteins B and H Are Necessary for TLR2 Activation in Permissive Cells. J. Immunol. 2006, 177, 7094–7102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Leoni, V.; Gianni, T.; Salvioli, S.; Campadelli-Fiume, G. Herpes Simplex Virus Glycoproteins gH/gL and gB Bind Toll-Like Receptor 2, and Soluble gH/gL Is Sufficient to Activate NF-κB. J. Virol. 2012, 86, 6555–6562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Ariza, M.-E.; Glaser, R.; Kaumaya, P.T.P.; Jones, C.; Williams, M.V. The EBV-Encoded dUTPase Activates NF-κB through the TLR2 and MyD88-Dependent Signaling Pathway. J. Immunol. 2009, 182, 851–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Wang, J.P.; Kurt-Jones, E.A.; Shin, O.S.; Manchak, M.D.; Levin, M.J.; Finberg, R.W. Varicella-Zoster Virus Activates Inflammatory Cytokines in Human Monocytes and Macrophages via Toll-Like Receptor 2. J. Virol. 2005, 79, 12658–12666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chen, J.; Ng, M.M.-L.; Chu, J.J.H. Activation of TLR2 and TLR6 by Dengue NS1 Protein and Its Implications in the Immunopathogenesis of Dengue Virus Infection. PLoS Pathog. 2015, 11, e1005053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Okumura, A.; Pitha, P.M.; Yoshimura, A.; Harty, R.N. Interaction between Ebola Virus Glycoprotein and Host Toll-Like Receptor 4 Leads to Induction of Proinflammatory Cytokines and SOCS1. J. Virol. 2010, 84, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kurt-Jones, E.A.; Popova, L.; Kwinn, L.A.; Haynes, L.M.; Jones, L.P.; Tripp, R.; Walsh, E.E.; Freeman, M.W.; Golenbock, D.T.; Anderson, L.J.; et al. Pattern recognition receptors TLR4 and CD14 mediate response to respiratory syncytial virus. Nat. Immunol. 2000, 1, 398–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Henrick, B.M.; Yao, X.-D.; Zahoor, M.; Abimiku, A.; Osawe, S.; Rosenthal, K.L. TLR10 Senses HIV-1 Proteins and Significantly Enhances HIV-1 Infection. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Siracusano, G.; Venuti, A.; Lombardo, D.; Mastino, A.; Esclatine, A.; Sciortino, M.T. Early activation of MyD88-mediated autophagy sustains HSV-1 replication in human monocytic THP-1 cells. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 31302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. O’Neill, L.A.J.; Bowie, A.G. The family of five: TIR-domain-containing adaptors in Toll-like receptor signalling. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2007, 7, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kagan, J.C.; Su, T.; Horng, T.; Chow, A.; Akira, S.; Medzhitov, R. TRAM couples endocytosis of Toll-like receptor 4 to the induction of interferon-β. Nat. Immunol. 2008, 9, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Cai, M.; Li, M.; Wang, K.; Wang, S.; Lu, Q.; Yan, J.; Mossman, K.L.; Lin, R.; Zheng, C. The Herpes Simplex Virus 1-Encoded Envelope Glycoprotein B Activates NF-κB through the Toll-Like Receptor 2 and MyD88/TRAF6-Dependent Signaling Pathway. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kawai, T.; Akira, S. Toll-like Receptors and Their Crosstalk with Other Innate Receptors in Infection and Immunity. Immunity 2011, 34, 637–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Into, T.; Inomata, M.; Takayama, E.; Takigawa, T. Autophagy in regulation of Toll-like receptor signaling. Cell. Signal. 2012, 24, 1150–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Delgado, M.A.; Deretic, V. Toll-like receptors in control of immunological autophagy. Cell Death Differ. 2009, 16, 976–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Shi, C.-S.; Kehrl, J.H. MyD88 and Trif Target Beclin 1 to Trigger Autophagy in Macrophages. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 33175–33182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Liang, X.H.; Kleeman, L.K.; Jiang, H.H.; Gordon, G.; Goldman, J.E.; Berry, G.; Herman, B.; Levine, B. Protection against Fatal Sindbis Virus Encephalitis by Beclin, a Novel Bcl-2-Interacting Protein. J. Virol. 1998, 72, 8586–8596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kang, R.; Zeh, H.J.; Lotze, M.T.; Tang, D. The Beclin 1 network regulates autophagy and apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2011, 18, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. McFarlane, S.; Aitken, J.; Sutherland, J.S.; Nicholl, M.J.; Preston, V.G.; Preston, C.M. Early Induction of Autophagy in Human Fibroblasts after Infection with Human Cytomegalovirus or Herpes Simplex Virus 1. J. Virol. 2011, 85, 4212–4221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Yang, J.; Park, J.; Koehler, M.; Simpson, J.; Luque, D.; Rodríguez, J.M.; Alsteens, D. Rotavirus Binding to Cell Surface Receptors Directly Recruiting α2 Integrin. Adv. NanoBiomed Res. 2021, 1, 2100077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yang, J.; Petitjean, S.J.L.; Koehler, M.; Zhang, Q.; Dumitru, A.C.; Chen, W.; Derclaye, S.; Vincent, S.P.; Soumillion, P.; Alsteens, D. Molecular interaction and inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 binding to the ACE2 receptor. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Simons, P.; Rinaldi, D.A.; Bondu, V.; Kell, A.M.; Bradfute, S.; Lidke, D.S.; Buranda, T. Integrin activation is an essential component of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 20398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Park, E.J.; Myint, P.K.; Appiah, M.G.; Darkwah, S.; Caidengbate, S.; Ito, A.; Matsuo, E.; Kawamoto, E.; Gaowa, A.; Shimaoka, M. The Spike Glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 Binds to β1 Integrins Expressed on the Surface of Lung Epithelial Cells. Viruses 2021, 13, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Wang, J.; Meng, M.; Li, M.; Guan, X.; Liu, J.; Gao, X.; Sun, Q.; Li, J.; Ma, C.; Wei, L. Integrin α5β1, as a Receptor of Fibronectin, Binds the FbaA Protein of Group A Streptococcus to Initiate Autophagy during Infection. Mbio 2020, 11, e00771-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Deuretzbacher, A.; Czymmeck, N.; Reimer, R.; Trülzsch, K.; Gaus, K.; Hohenberg, H.; Heesemann, J.; Aepfelbacher, M.; Ruckdeschel, K. β1 Integrin-Dependent Engulfment of Yersinia enterocolitica by Macrophages Is Coupled to the Activation of Autophagy and Suppressed by Type III Protein Secretion. J. Immunol. 2009, 183, 5847–5860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Akula, S.M.; Pramod, N.P.; Wang, F.-Z.; Chandran, B. Integrin α3β1 (CD 49c/29) Is a Cellular Receptor for Kaposi’s Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus (KSHV/HHV-8) Entry into the Target Cells. Cell 2002, 108, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Feire, A.L.; Koss, H.; Compton, T. Cellular integrins function as entry receptors for human cytomegalovirus via a highly conserved disintegrin-like domain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 15470–15475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Bentz, G.L.; Yurochko, A.D. Human CMV infection of endothelial cells induces an angiogenic response through viral binding to EGF receptor and β 1 and β 3 integrins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 5531–5536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. La Linn, M.; Eble, J.A.; Lübken, C.; Slade, R.W.; Heino, J.; Davies, J.; Suhrbier, A. An arthritogenic alphavirus uses the α1β1 integrin collagen receptor. Virology 2005, 336, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Coulson, B.S.; Londrigan, S.L.; Lee, D.J. Rotavirus contains integrin ligand sequences and a disintegrin-like domain that are implicated in virus entry into cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 5389–5394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Pietiäinen, V.; Marjomäki, V.; Upla, P.; Pelkmans, L.; Helenius, A.; Hyypiä, T. Echovirus 1 Endocytosis into Caveosomes Requires Lipid Rafts, Dynamin II, and Signaling Events. Mol. Biol. Cell 2004, 15, 4911–4925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Naranatt, P.P.; Akula, S.M.; Zien, C.A.; Krishnan, H.H.; Chandran, B. Kaposi’s Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus Induces the Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase-PKC-ζ-MEK-ERK Signaling Pathway in Target Cells Early during Infection: Implications for Infectivity. J. Virol. 2003, 77, 1524–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Xing, L.; Huhtala, M.; Pietiäinen, V.; Käpylä, J.; Vuorinen, K.; Marjomäki, V.; Heino, J.; Johnson, M.S.; Hyypiä, T.; Cheng, R.H. Structural and Functional Analysis of Integrin α2I Domain Interaction with Echovirus 1. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 11632–11638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Marjomäki, V.; Turkki, P.; Huttunen, M. Infectious Entry Pathway of Enterovirus B Species. Viruses 2015, 7, 6387–6399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Feire, A.L.; Roy, R.M.; Manley, K.; Compton, T. The Glycoprotein B Disintegrin-Like Domain Binds Beta 1 Integrin to Mediate Cytomegalovirus Entry. J. Virol. 2010, 84, 10026–10037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Verma, S.C.; Nigam, S.; Jain, C.L.; Pant, P.; Padhi, M.M. Microwave-assisted extraction of gallic acid in leaves of Eucalyptus x hybrida Maiden and its quantitative determination by HPTLC. Der. Chem. Sin. 2011, 2, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Salone, B.; Martina, Y.; Piersanti, S.; Cundari, E.; Cherubini, G.; Franqueville, L.; Failla, C.; Boulanger, P.; Saggio, I. Integrinα3β1 Is an Alternative Cellular Receptor for AdenovirusSerotype5. J. Virol. 2003, 77, 13448–13454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Delgui, L.; Oña, A.; Gutiérrez, S.; Luque, D.; Navarro, A.; Castón, J.R.; Rodríguez, J.F. The capsid protein of infectious bursal disease virus contains a functional α4β1 integrin ligand motif. Virology 2009, 386, 360–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jackson, T.; Blakemore, W.; Newman, J.W.I.; Knowles, N.J.; Mould, A.P.; Humphries, M.J.; King, A.M.Q. Foot-and-mouth disease virus is a ligand for the high-affinity binding conformation of integrin α5β1: Influence of the leucine residue within the RGDL motif on selectivity of integrin binding. J. Gen. Virol. 2000, 81, 1383–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Tugizov, S.M.; Berline, J.W.; Palefsky, J.M. Epstein-Barr virus infection of polarized tongue and nasopharyngeal epithelial cells. Nat. Med. 2003, 9, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Davison, E.; Diaz, R.M.; Hart, I.R.; Santis, G.; Marshall, J.F. Integrin alpha5beta1-mediated adenovirus infection is enhanced by the integrin-activating antibody TS2/16. J. Virol. 1997, 71, 6204–6207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Walker, L.R.; Hussein, H.A.M.; Akula, S.M. Disintegrin-like domain of glycoprotein B regulates Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus infection of cells. J. Gen. Virol. 2014, 95, 1770–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Huang, S.; Kamata, T.; Takada, Y.; Ruggeri, Z.M.; Nemerow, G.R. Adenovirus interaction with distinct integrins mediates separate events in cell entry and gene delivery to hematopoietic cells. J. Virol. 1996, 70, 4502–4508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Stanway, G.; Kalkkinen, N.; Roivainen, M.; Ghazi, F.; Khan, M.; Smyth, M.; Meurman, O.; Hyypiä, T. Molecular and biological characteristics of echovirus 22, a representative of a new picornavirus group. J. Virol. 1994, 68, 8232–8238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Li, E.; Brown, S.L.; Stupack, D.G.; Puente, X.S.; Cheresh, D.A.; Nemerow, G.R. Integrin αvβ1 Is an Adenovirus Coreceptor. J. Virol. 2001, 75, 5405–5409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Jackson, T.; King, A.M.Q.; Stuart, D.I.; Fry, E. Structure and receptor binding. Virus Res. 2003, 91, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Triantafilou, K.; Triantafilou, M.; Takada, Y.; Fernandez, N. Human Parechovirus 1 Utilizes Integrins αvβ3 and αvβ1 as Receptors. J. Virol. 2000, 74, 5856–5862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Cheshenko, N.; Trepanier, J.B.; González, P.A.; Eugenin, E.A.; Jacobs, W.R.; Herold, B.C. Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Glycoprotein H Interacts with Integrin αvβ3 To Facilitate Viral Entry and Calcium Signaling in Human Genital Tract Epithelial Cells. J. Virol. 2014, 88, 10026–10038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Nelsen-Salz, B.; Eggers, H.J.; Zimmermann, H. Integrin αvβ3 (vitronectin receptor) is a candidate receptor for the virulent echovirus 9 strain Barty. J. Gen. Virol. 1999, 80 Pt 9, 2311–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Roivainen, M.; Piirainen, L.; Hovi, T.; Virtanen, I.; Riikonen, T.; Heino, J.; Hyypiä, T. Entry of Coxsackievirus A9 into Host Cells: Specific Interactions with αvβ3 Integrin, the Vitronectin Receptor. Virology 1994, 203, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Matthys, V.S.; Gorbunova, E.E.; Gavrilovskaya, I.N.; Mackow, E.R. Andes Virus Recognition of Human and Syrian Hamster β3 Integrins Is Determined by an L33P Substitution in the PSI Domain. J. Virol. 2010, 84, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Wickham, T.J.; Mathias, P.; Cheresh, D.A.; Nemerow, G.R. Integrins αvβ3 and αvβ5 promote adenovirus internalization but not virus attachment. Cell 1993, 73, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Veesler, D.; Cupelli, K.; Burger, M.; Gräber, P.; Stehle, T.; Johnson, J.E. Single-particle EM reveals plasticity of interactions between the adenovirus penton base and integrin αVβ3. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 8815–8819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Zárate, S.; Romero, P.; Espinosa, R.; Arias, C.F.; López, S. VP7 Mediates the Interaction of Rotaviruses with Integrin αvβ3 through a Novel Integrin-Binding Site. J. Virol. 2004, 78, 10839–10847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Larson, R.S.; Brown, D.C.; Ye, C.; Hjelle, B. Peptide Antagonists That Inhibit Sin Nombre Virus and Hantaan Virus Entry through the β 3 -Integrin Receptor. J. Virol. 2005, 79, 7319–7326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Mou, D.L.; Wang, Y.P.; Huang, C.X.; Li, G.Y.; Pan, L.; Yang, W.S.; Bai, X.F. Cellular entry of Hantaan virus A9 strain: Specific interactions with β3 integrins and a novel 70kDa protein. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2006, 339, 611–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Lafrenie, R.M.; Lee, S.F.; Hewlett, I.K.; Yamada, K.M.; Dhawan, S. Involvement of Integrin αvβ3 in the Pathogenesis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection in Monocytes. Virology 2002, 297, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Neff, S.; Sá-Carvalho, D.; Rieder, E.; Mason, P.W.; Blystone, S.D.; Brown, E.J.; Baxt, B. Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Virulent for Cattle Utilizes the Integrin α v β 3 as Its Receptor. J. Virol. 1998, 72, 3587–3594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Fan, W.; Qian, P.; Wang, D.; Zhi, X.; Wei, Y.; Chen, H.; Li, X. Integrin αvβ3 promotes infection by Japanese encephalitis virus. Res. Veter Sci. 2017, 111, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Garrigues, H.J.; Rubinchikova, Y.E.; DiPersio, C.M.; Rose, T.M. Integrin α V β 3 Binds to the RGD Motif of Glycoprotein B of Kaposi’s Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus and Functions as an RGD-Dependent Entry Receptor. J. Virol. 2008, 82, 1570–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Veettil, M.V.; Sadagopan, S.; Sharma-Walia, N.; Wang, F.-Z.; Raghu, H.; Varga, L.; Chandran, B. Kaposi’s Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus Forms a Multimolecular Complex of Integrins (αVβ5, αVβ3, and α3β1) and CD98-xCT during Infection of Human Dermal Microvascular Endothelial Cells, and CD98-xCT Is Essential for the Postentry Stage of Infection. J. Virol. 2008, 82, 12126–12144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Chesnokova, L.S.; Hutt-Fletcher, L.M. Fusion of Epstein-Barr Virus with Epithelial Cells Can Be Triggered by αvβ 5 in Addition to αvβ 6 and αvβ 8, and Integrin Binding Triggers a Conformational Change in Glycoproteins gHgL. J. Virol. 2011, 85, 13214–13223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Chesnokova, L.S.; Nishimura, S.L.; Hutt-Fletcher, L.M. Fusion of epithelial cells by Epstein-Barr virus proteins is triggered by binding of viral glycoproteins gHgL to integrins αvβ6 or αvβ8. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 20464–20469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Gianni, T.; Salvioli, S.; Chesnokova, L.S.; Hutt-Fletcher, L.M.; Campadelli-Fiume, G. αvβ6- and αvβ8-Integrins Serve as Interchangeable Receptors for HSV gH/gL to Promote Endocytosis and Activation of Membrane Fusion. PLOS Pathog. 2013, 9, e1003806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Gianni, T.; Massaro, R.; Campadelli-Fiume, G. Dissociation of HSV gL from gH by αvβ6- or αvβ8-integrin promotes gH activation and virus entry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E3901–E3910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Berryman, S.; Clark, S.; Monaghan, P.; Jackson, T. Early Events in Integrin αvβ6-Mediated Cell Entry of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus. J. Virol. 2005, 79, 8519–8534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Lawrence, P.; LaRocco, M.; Baxt, B.; Rieder, E. Examination of soluble integrin resistant mutants of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Virol. J. 2013, 10, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Jackson, T.; Clark, S.; Berryman, S.; Burman, A.; Cambier, S.; Mu, D.; Nishimura, S.; King, A.M.Q. Integrin αvβ8 Functions as a Receptor for Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus: Role of the β-Chain Cytodomain in Integrin-Mediated Infection. J. Virol. 2004, 78, 4533–4540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Evander, M.; Frazer, I.H.; Payne, E.; Qi, Y.M.; Hengst, K.; McMillan, N.A. Identification of the alpha6 integrin as a candidate receptor for papillomaviruses. J. Virol. 1997, 71, 2449–2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Aksoy, P.; Abban, C.Y.; Kiyashka, E.; Qiang, W.; Meneses, P.I. HPV16 infection of HaCaTs is dependent on β4 integrin, and α6 integrin processing. Virology 2014, 449, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Gavrilovskaya, I.N.; Shepley, M.; Shaw, R.; Ginsberg, M.H.; Mackow, E.R. β 3 integrins mediate the cellular entry of hantaviruses that cause respiratory failure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 7074–7079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Yang, B.; Xue, Q.; Guo, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, K.; Li, W.; Chen, S.; Xue, T.; Qi, X.; et al. Autophagy induction by the pathogen receptor NECTIN4 and sustained autophagy contribute to peste des petits ruminants virus infectivity. Autophagy 2020, 16, 842–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Denizot, M.; Varbanov, M.; Espert, L.; Robert-Hebmann, V.; Sagnier, S.; Garcia, E.G.E.; Curriu, M.; Mamoun, R.; Blanco, J.; Biard-Piechaczyk, M. HIV-1 gp41 fusogenic function triggers autophagy in uninfected cells. Autophagy 2008, 4, 998–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Espert, L.; Denizot, M.; Grimaldi, M.; Robert-Hebmann, V.; Gay, B.; Varbanov, M.; Codogno, P.; Biard-Piechaczyk, M. Autophagy is involved in T cell death after binding of HIV-1 envelope proteins to CXCR4. J. Clin. Investig. 2006, 116, 2161–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Shelly, S.; Lukinova, N.; Bambina, S.; Berman, A.; Cherry, S. Autophagy Is an Essential Component of Drosophila Immunity against Vesicular Stomatitis Virus. Immunity 2009, 30, 588–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Nakamoto, M.; Moy, R.H.; Xu, J.; Bambina, S.; Yasunaga, A.; Shelly, S.S.; Gold, B.; Cherry, S. Virus Recognition by Toll-7 Activates Antiviral Autophagy in Drosophila. Immunity 2012, 36, 658–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. De Clercq, E.; Li, G. Approved Antiviral Drugs over the Past 50 Years. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2016, 29, 695–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. LaRue, R.C.; Xing, E.; Kenney, A.D.; Zhang, Y.; Tuazon, J.A.; Li, J.; Yount, J.S.; Li, P.-K.; Sharma, A. Rationally Designed ACE2-Derived Peptides Inhibit SARS-CoV-2. Bioconjugate Chem. 2021, 32, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 24 03423 g001 550
Figure 1. The major autophagic pathways include microautophagy, macroautophagy, and chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA). This figure was created with biorender.com and accessed on 26 November 2022.
Figure 1. The major autophagic pathways include microautophagy, macroautophagy, and chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA). This figure was created with biorender.com and accessed on 26 November 2022.
Ijms 24 03423 g001
Ijms 24 03423 g002 550
Figure 2. Overview of the canonical autophagy pathway. Canonical autophagy is initiated by signaling according to low intracellular energy. The phagophore is elongated by using the ubiquitin-like conjugation system. The elongated phagophores form autophagosomes which fuse with lysosomes. This figure was created with biorender.com and accessed on 17 January 2023.
Figure 2. Overview of the canonical autophagy pathway. Canonical autophagy is initiated by signaling according to low intracellular energy. The phagophore is elongated by using the ubiquitin-like conjugation system. The elongated phagophores form autophagosomes which fuse with lysosomes. This figure was created with biorender.com and accessed on 17 January 2023.
Ijms 24 03423 g002
Table
Table 2. Viruses interact with TLRs.
Table 2. Viruses interact with TLRs.
TLRLigandsReference
TLR2Respiratory syncytial virus[75]
Cytomegalovirus[81,82]
Herpes simplex virus-1[83]
Epstein–Barr virus[84]
Measles virus[76]
Hepatitis C virus[77]
Hepatitis B virus[78]
Varicella-zoster virus[85]
TLR2/TLR6Respiratory syncytial virus[75]
Dengue virus[86]
TLR4Measles virus [76]
Cytomegalovirus [79]
Herpes Simplex virus-1[80]
Ebola virus[87]
Respiratory syncytial virus[88]
TLR10Human immunodeficiency virus[89]
Table
Table 3. Integrins are involved in virus entry.
Table 3. Integrins are involved in virus entry.
IntegrinsVirusReference
β1Reovirus[107]
Human cytomegalovirus[108,109]
β3Human cytomegalovirus[109]
α1β1Ross River virus[110]
α2β1Rotavirus[101,111]
Echovirus[112]
Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus[113]
Echovirus 1[114,115]
Cytomegalovirus[116]
α3β1Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus[117]
Adenovirus[118]
α4β1Rotavirus[111]
Infectious bursal disease virus[119]
α5β1Foot-and-mouth disease virus[120]
Epstein–Barr virus[121]
Adenovirus[122]
α6β1Cytomegalovirus[116]
α9β1Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus[123]
αMβ2Adenovirus[124]
αVβ1Echovirus 22[125]
Adenovirus[126]
Foot-and-mouth disease virus[127]
Human parechovirus 1[128]
αVβ3Cytomegalovirus[108,116]
Human parechovirus 1[128]
Herpes simplex virus[129]
Echovirus 9[130]
Coxsackievirus A9[131]
Andes virus[132]
Adenovirus[133,134]
Rotavirus[135]
Sin Nombre virus[136]
Hantaan virus[137]
Human immunodeficiency virus 1[138]
Foot-and-mouth disease virus[139]
Japanese encephalitis virus[140]
Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus[141]
αVβ5Adenovirus[133]
Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus[142]
Epstein–Barr virus[143]
αVβ6Coxsackievirus A9[131]
Epstein–Barr virus[143,144]
Herpes simplex virus[145,146]
Foot-and-mouth disease virus[147,148]
αVβ8Epstein–Barr virus[143,144]
Herpes simplex virus[145,146]
Foot-and-mouth disease virus[149]
α6β1Papillomavirus[150]
α6β4Papillomavirus[150,151]
αXβ2Rotavirus[111]
αIIbβ3Sin Nombre virus[152]
Hantaan virus[152]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, J. Viruses Binding to Host Receptors Interacts with Autophagy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 3423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043423

AMA Style

Yang J. Viruses Binding to Host Receptors Interacts with Autophagy. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(4):3423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043423

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Jinsung. 2023. "Viruses Binding to Host Receptors Interacts with Autophagy" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 4: 3423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043423

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop