{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02491280518186348, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009466865969108122, 'mean_word_length': 4.940828402366864, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Receptors: Comparison of Bovine αV Integrin Utilization by Type A and O Viruses

ABSTRACT Three members of the αV integrin family of cellular receptors, αVβ1, αVβ3, and αVβ6, have been identified as receptors for foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) in vitro. The virus interacts with these receptors via a highly conserved arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) amino acid sequence motif located within the βG-βH (G-H) loop of VP1. Other αV integrins, as well as several other integrins, recognize and bind to RGD motifs on their natural ligands and also may be candidate receptors for FMDV. To analyze the roles of the αV integrins from a susceptible species as viral receptors, we molecularly cloned the bovine β1, β5, and β6 integrin subunits. Using these subunits, along with previously cloned bovine αV and β3 subunits, in a transient expression assay system, we compared the efficiencies of infection mediated by αVβ1, αVβ3, αVβ5, and αVβ6 among three strains of FMDV serotype A and two strains of serotype O. While all the viruses could infect cells expressing these integrins, they exhibited different efficiencies of integrin utilization. All the type A viruses used αVβ3 and αVβ6 with relatively high efficiency, while only one virus utilized αVβ1 with moderate efficiency. In contrast, both type O viruses utilized αVβ6 and αVβ1 with higher efficiency than αVβ3. Only low levels of viral replication were detected in αVβ5-expressing cells infected with either serotype. Experiments in which the ligand-binding domains among the β subunits were exchanged indicated that this region of the integrin subunit appears to contribute to the differences in integrin utilizations among strains. In contrast, the G-H loops of the different viruses do not appear to be involved in this phenomenon. Thus, the ability of the virus to utilize multiple integrins in vitro may be a reflection of the use of multiple receptors during the course of infection within the susceptible host.