Letter in response to: Making the case: Married versus Separate models of alphaherpes virus anterograde transport in axons

摘要

We are writing in response to a recent review: 'Making the case: Married versus Separate models of alphaherpes virus anterograde transport in axons', by Kratchmarov, Taylor and Enquist (July 16, 2012). This review compares evidence for the Married (fully assembled, enveloped particles) versus Separate (unenveloped capsids) models of anterograde axonal transport for two alphaherpesviruses: the swine pseudorabies virus (PRV) and the human herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1). The main thrust of this review is that the Married model of anterograde transport is certain for PRV, whereas with HSV-1, there is evidence for both models. The authors are strong proponents of the Married model and build a case that the major form of anterograde transport for HSV-1 also involves Married particles. They advocate for the use of live cell imaging of dual fluorescent viral recombinants, which they suggest produce more accurate information on whether capsids are undergoing transport as Separate versus Married particles, compared with static antibody-stained and electron microscopy (EM) images. Although live cell imaging can be useful in these analyses, there are major disadvantages because the viral recombinants used are often defective in assembly. We would argue that antibody and EM studies produced a more accurate assessment of HSV-1 transport and suggest that there are quantitative (and qualitative) differences in the anterograde transport of HSV-1 versus PRV. Further, several of the arguments against the Separate transport model for HSV-1 were selective and, in some cases, imbalanced or inaccurate.