Search

Canine parvovirus (CPV) and feline panleukopenia virus (FPV) differ in their ability to infect dogs and dog cells. Canine cell infection is a specific property of CPV and depends on the ability of the virus to bind the canine transferrin receptor (TfR), as well as other unidentified factors. Three regions in the capsid structure, located around VP2 residues 93, 300, and 323, can all influence canine TfR binding and canine cell infection. These regions were compared in the CPV and FPV capsid structures that have been determined, as well as in two new structures of CPV capsids that contain substitutions of the VP2 Asn-93 to Asp and Arg, respectively. The new structures, determined by X-ray crystallography to 3.2 and 3.3 A resolutions, respectively, clearly showed differences in the interactions of residue 93 with an adjacent loop on the capsid surface. Each of the three regions show small differences in structure, but each appears to be structurally independent of the others, and the changes likely act together to affect the ability of the capsid to bind the canine TfR and to infect canine cells. This emphasizes the complex nature of capsid alterations that change the virus-cell interaction to allow infection of cells from different hosts.

Feline panleukopenia virus (FPV) and its host range variant, canine parvovirus (CPV), can bind the feline transferrin receptor (TfR), while only CPV binds to the canine TfR. Introducing two CPV-specific changes into FPV (at VP2 residues 93 and 323) endowed that virus with the canine TfR binding property and allowed canine cell infection, although neither change alone altered either property. In CPV the reciprocal changes of VP2 residue 93 or 323 to the FPV sequences individually resulted in modest reductions in infectivity for canine cells. Changing both residues in CPV to the FPV amino acids blocked the canine cell infection, but that virus was still able to bind the canine TfR at low levels. This shows that both CPV-specific changes control canine TfR binding but that binding is not always sufficient to mediate infection.

The past few years have seen major advances in our understanding of the controls of evolution, host range and cell tropism of parvoviruses. Notable findings have included the identification of the transferrin receptor TfR as the cell surface receptor for canine parvovirus and feline panleukopenia virus, and also the finding that specific binding to the canine TfR led to the emergence of canine parvovirus as a new pathogen in dogs. The structures of the adeno-associated virus-2 and porcine parvovirus capsids, along with those of the minute virus of mice, have also advanced our understanding of parvovirus biology. Structure-function studies have shown that in several different parvoviruses the threefold spikes or peaks of the capsid control several aspects of cell tropism and host range, and that those are subject to selective pressures leading to viral evolution. The cell and tissue tropisms of different adeno-associated virus serotypes were demonstrated to be due, in part, to specific receptor binding.

Canine parvovirus (CPV) and feline panleukopenia virus (FPV) capsids bind to the transferrin receptors (TfRs) of their hosts and use these receptors to infect cells. The binding is partially host specific, as FPV binds only to the feline TfR, while CPV binds to both the canine and feline TfRs. The host-specific binding is controlled by a combination of residues within a raised region of the capsid. To define the TfR structures that interact with the virus, we altered the apical domain of the feline or canine TfR or prepared chimeras of these receptors and tested the altered receptors for binding to FPV or CPV capsids. Most changes in the apical domain of the feline TfR did not affect binding, but replacing Leu221 with Ser or Asp prevented receptor binding to either FPV or CPV capsids, while replacing Leu221 with Lys resulted in a receptor that bound only to CPV but not to FPV. Analysis of recombinants of the feline and canine TfRs showed that sequences controlling CPV-specific binding were within the apical domain and that more than one difference between these receptors determined the CPV-specific binding of the canine TfR. Single changes within the canine TfR which removed a single amino acid insertion or which eliminated a glycosylation site gave that receptor the expanded ability to bind to FPV and CPV. In some cases, binding of capsids to mutant receptors did not result in infection, suggesting a structural role for the receptor in cell infection by the viruses.

Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a host range variant of a feline virus that acquired the ability to infect dogs through changes in its capsid protein. Canine and feline viruses both use the feline transferrin receptor (TfR) to infect feline cells, and here we show that CPV infects canine cells through its ability to specifically bind the canine TfR. Receptor binding on host cells at 37 degrees C only partially correlated with the host ranges of the viruses, and an intermediate virus strain (CPV type 2) bound to higher levels on cells than did either the feline panleukopenia virus or a later strain of CPV. During the process of adaptation to dogs the later variant strain of CPV gained the ability to more efficiently use the canine TfR for infection and also showed reduced binding to feline and canine cells compared to CPV type 2. Differences on the top and the side of the threefold spike of the capsid surface controlled specific TfR binding and the efficiency of binding to feline and canine cells, and these differences also determined the cell infection properties of the viruses.