Dosimetry for lung tumorigenesis induced by urethane, 4-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), and benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) in A/JJmsSlc mice.

Some chemicals are known to be lung carcinogens in rodents. While many studies using two-stage models have administered medium or high doses to mice, few have tested lower doses. The dose dependence of urethane, 4-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), and benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), three well-known lung carcinogens at high doses, has not been sufficiently reported in lower dose ranges. Our study evaluated the tumorigenicity of urethane, NNK, and B[a]P at 26 weeks after a single intraperitoneal administration of each compound within medium to low dose in male and/or female A/JJmsSlc (A/J) mice. Dose-dependent tumorigenesis was demonstrated histopathologically for the three compounds. These results suggested that the tumorigenicity of these chemicals is dose dependent in A/J mice, even at lower doses than previously reported.

Is the optimal pH for membrane fusion in host cells by avian influenza viruses related to host range and pathogenicity?

Influenza viruses isolated from wild ducks do not replicate in chickens. This fact is not explained solely by the receptor specificity of the hemagglutinin (HA) from such viruses for target host cells. To investigate this restriction in host range, the fusion activities of HA molecules from duck and chicken influenza viruses were examined. Influenza viruses A/duck/Mongolia/54/2001 (H5N2) (Dk/MNG) and A/chicken/Ibaraki/1/2005 (H5N2) (Ck/IBR), which replicate only in their primary hosts, were used. The optimal pH for membrane fusion of Ck/IBR was 5.9, higher than that of Dk/MNG at 4.9. To assess the relationship between the optimal pH for fusion and the host range of avian influenza viruses, the optimal pH for fusion of 55 influenza virus strains isolated from ducks and chickens was examined. No correlation was found between the host range and optimal pH for membrane fusion by the viruses, and this finding applied also to the H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses. The optimal pH for membrane fusion for avian influenza viruses was shown to not necessarily be correlated with their host range or pathogenicity in ducks and chickens.

Experimental infection of highly and low pathogenic avian influenza viruses to chickens, ducks, tree sparrows, jungle crows, and black rats for the evaluation of their roles in virus transmission.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIVs) have spread in both poultry and wild birds. Determining transmission routes of these viruses during an outbreak is essential for the control of avian influenza. It has been widely postulated that migratory ducks play crucial roles in the widespread dissemination of HPAIVs in poultry by carrying viruses along with their migrations; however close contacts between wild migratory ducks and poultry are less likely in modern industrial poultry farming settings. Therefore, we conducted experimental infections of HPAIVs and low pathogenic avian influenza viruses (LPAIVs) to chickens, domestic ducks, tree sparrows, jungle crows, and black rats to evaluate their roles in virus transmission. The results showed that chickens, ducks, sparrows, and crows were highly susceptible to HPAIV infection. Significant titers of virus were recovered from the sparrows and crows infected with HPAIVs, which suggests that they potentially play roles of transmission of HPAIVs to poultry. In contrast, the growth of LPAIVs was limited in each of the animals tested compared with that of HPAIVs. The present results indicate that these common synanthropes play some roles in influenza virus transmission from wild birds to poultry.

Antiviral activity of stachyflin on influenza A viruses of different hemagglutinin subtypes.

BACKGROUND: The hemagglutinin (HA) of influenza viruses is a possible target for antiviral drugs because of its key roles in the initiation of infection. Although it was found that a natural compound, Stachyflin, inhibited the growth of H1 and H2 but not H3 influenza viruses in MDCK cells, inhibitory activity of the compound has not been assessed against H4-H16 influenza viruses and the precise mechanism of inhibition has not been clarified. METHODS: Inhibitory activity of Stachyflin against H4-H16 influenza viruses, as well as H1-H3 viruses was examined in MDCK cells. To identify factors responsible for the susceptibility of the viruses to this compound, Stachyflin-resistant viruses were selected in MDCK cells and used for computer docking simulation. RESULTS: It was found that in addition to antiviral activity of Stachyflin against influenza viruses of H1 and H2 subtypes, it inhibited replication of viruses of H5 and H6 subtypes, as well as A(H1N1)pdm09 virus in MDCK cells. Stachyflin also inhibited the virus growth in the lungs of mice infected with A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) and A/chicken/Ibaraki/1/2005 (H5N2). Substitution of amino acid residues was found on the HA2 subunit of Stachyflin-resistant viruses. Docking simulation indicated that D37, K51, T107, and K121 are responsible for construction of the cavity for the binding of the compound. In addition, 3-dimensional structure of the cavity of the HA of Stachyflin-susceptible virus strains was different from that of insusceptible virus strains. CONCLUSION: Antiviral activity of Stachyflin was found against A(H1N1)pdm09, H5, and H6 viruses, and identified a potential binding pocket for Stachyflin on the HA. The present results should provide us with useful information for the development of HA inhibitors with more effective and broader spectrum.