Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Alerts
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Author's Takes
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Immune Environment in Glioblastoma (Feb 2023)
    • Korsmeyer Award 25th Anniversary Collection (Jan 2023)
    • Aging (Jul 2022)
    • Next-Generation Sequencing in Medicine (Jun 2022)
    • New Therapeutic Targets in Cardiovascular Diseases (Mar 2022)
    • Immunometabolism (Jan 2022)
    • Circadian Rhythm (Oct 2021)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Commentaries
    • Research letters
    • Letters to the editor
    • Editorials
    • Viewpoint
    • Top read articles
  • Clinical Medicine
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Author's Takes
  • In-Press Preview
  • Commentaries
  • Research letters
  • Letters to the editor
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Alerts
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Subscribe
  • Contact

Usage Information

IFN-I response timing relative to virus replication determines MERS coronavirus infection outcomes
Rudragouda Channappanavar, … , David K. Meyerholz, Stanley Perlman
Rudragouda Channappanavar, … , David K. Meyerholz, Stanley Perlman
Published July 29, 2019
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2019;129(9):3625-3639. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI126363.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Infectious disease Virology

IFN-I response timing relative to virus replication determines MERS coronavirus infection outcomes

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Type 1 IFNs (IFN-I) generally protect mammalian hosts from virus infections, but in some cases, IFN-I is pathogenic. Because IFN-I is protective, it is commonly used to treat virus infections for which no specific approved drug or vaccine is available. The Middle East respiratory syndrome–coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is such an infection, yet little is known about the role of IFN-I in this setting. Here, we show that IFN-I signaling is protective during MERS-CoV infection. Blocking IFN-I signaling resulted in delayed virus clearance, enhanced neutrophil infiltration, and impaired MERS-CoV–specific T cell responses. Notably, IFN-I administration within 1 day after infection (before virus titers peak) protected mice from lethal infection, despite a decrease in IFN-stimulated gene (ISG) and inflammatory cytokine gene expression. In contrast, delayed IFN-β treatment failed to effectively inhibit virus replication; increased infiltration and activation of monocytes, macrophages, and neutrophils in the lungs; and enhanced proinflammatory cytokine expression, resulting in fatal pneumonia in an otherwise sublethal infection. Together, these results suggest that the relative timing of the IFN-I response and maximal virus replication is key in determining outcomes, at least in infected mice. By extension, IFN-αβ or combination therapy may need to be used cautiously to treat viral infections in clinical settings.

Authors

Rudragouda Channappanavar, Anthony R. Fehr, Jian Zheng, Christine Wohlford-Lenane, Juan E. Abrahante, Matthias Mack, Ramakrishna Sompallae, Paul B. McCray Jr., David K. Meyerholz, Stanley Perlman

×

Usage data is cumulative from February 2022 through February 2023.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 5,270 724
PDF 385 156
Figure 763 14
Supplemental data 77 4
Citation downloads 113 0
Totals 6,608 898
Total Views 7,506
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2023 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts