Core+1 protein is an HCV gene product expressed by transcriptional slippage resulting in the production of different ARFP isoforms with variable N-terminal regions (
5,
14,
22-
24). Although the function of the core+1 protein is not fully understood, there is evidence showing that core+1 protein may play a role in the entry mechanisms, morphogenesis, and regulation of cellular function, which are important in the viral life cycle (
5). In the current study, the prevalence and titer of specific anti-core+1 Abs were determined in the serum of both responders and non-responders. The specific detection of purified core+1 protein by anti-core+1 polyclonal Abs was evaluated by ELISA and no cross-reactivity of core protein was observed. Western blotting was performed to demonstrate the specific antigenicity of the HCV core+1 protein compared with the HCV core protein. No cross-reactivity of anti-core Ab was observed with anti-core+1 Abs, despite the fact that both proteins possess the N-terminal domain of the core protein.
The fact that the most important antigenic domain of the HCV-core protein is located in amino acids 11 - 45 and the shared part of core+1 and core is the first 10 amino acids indicates the absence of cross-reactivity between the core and ARFP antigenic domains. The first 10 amino acids of the core+1 protein play a stabilizing role in the conformational structure of the core+1 protein, leading to better folding, rather than acting as an antigenic region (
5). Therefore, this homology does not interfere with the anti-core+1 positive response (
5); besides, the authors` previous study showed no cross-reactivity between the Abs against core+1, truncated core+1, and core proteins (
10).
Previous reports indicated that the expression of core+1protein in patients infected with HCV was controversial (
6). Therefore, the presence and titer of anti-core+1 Abs in sequential samples of 70 Iranian individuals infected with HCV treated with combination therapy were traced. Among these, 53 (75.7%) patients reacted positively with HCV core+1 recombinant protein. The seroprevalence levels of anti-core+1 Abs at baseline in responder and non-responder groups was 75% and 76.5%, respectively. This result was different from the ones reported by other groups (
13,
17) that used recombinant core+1 antigen in ELISA, but were nearly similar to some other studies (
5,
7).
In the current study, there was a significant change in the titer of anti-core+1 Abs during the combination therapy in responder patients compared to non-responder individuals, which was in accordance with some reports showing a link between the immune response to core+1 protein, manifested by the development of anti-core+1 Abs, and the outcome of combination therapy (
5,
6,
11,
13,
17). In detail, Gao et al. (
17) reported that from 72 patients infected with HCV receiving antiviral therapy, all of the patients with negative anti-core+1 Ab at the baseline and 70% of anti-core+1 Ab positive patients achieved SVR. Moreover, they showed that the therapy outcome was associated with a decline in titer in 2 of 5 cases by investigating the time-dependent changes in anti-core+1 Ab level. An earlier study from Iran also showed significant higher anti-core+1 antibody titer in patients resistant to HCV drug compared with patients showed SVR (
11).
The current study findings revealed that the immune response to core+1 antigen was affected by the combination therapy. On the other hand, Cohen et al. (5), Bain et al., (6) and Karamitros et al., (
13) in studies on of 27, 6, and 90 individuals infected with HCV respectively, found no changes in the titer of anti-core+1 Abs as well as no correlation between anti-core+1 Abs dynamics and the combination treatment outcome. It seems that the presence or absence of anti-core+1 antibody may not be a sensitive indicator for the prediction of the efficacy of combination therapy in patients infected with HCV, but the decreased titer of anti-core+1 Abs can be considered as an indicator to predict the outcome of therapy. Furthermore, it was found that the serum level of HCV core+1 antigen could not reflect the trend of HCV RNA level in patients with CHC undergoing combination therapy at baseline, that was compatible with some reports (
13), and contrasted with the other reports (
5,
17).
It could be due to the similar prevalence of anti-core+1 Abs in both responder and non-responder groups; therefore, it was thought that the higher viral load could not have a significant effect on the production of more core+1 protein in the ones that were positive for this antigen in both groups. Apart from methodology, parameters related to the selected study group such as race, HCV genotypes, and geographical regions as well as sample sizes might be the reasons that cause this difference. It seems that the mentioned factors might have some impacts on the HCV anti-core+1 Ab presence. Doing experiments on different groups infected with different genotypes might require a better understanding of how and why a patient generates different Ab responses against HCV core+1 protein.
To the authors best knowledge, the current study was the first study conducted to assess the effect of the titer of core+1 antibody on the outcome of treatment in the Iranian patients with CHC. The current study data were in agreement with some studies that showed the high F protein expression may be linked to the pathogenesis of the viral infection (
1,
4). Here, it was suggested that only the lower titer of anti-core+1 antibody responses might be influenced by IFN combination therapy and associated with SVR in Iranian patients with HCV infection. On the other hand, there was a correlation between the immune response to core+1 protein and the response to combination therapy in patients infected with HCV as the cases with lower anti-core+1 activity were more likely to achieve SVR than other patients who were also positive for anti-core+1 antibodies. Therefore, the level of specific antibodies to core+1 protein may be considered as an alternative assessment of the therapeutic response in patients infected with HCV that can predict the efficacy of IFN therapy only in patients that develop an antibody response against HCV core+1 protein.
There were some studies showing that core+1 protein was associated with the outcomes of HCV infections, as this protein can suppress T-cell immune responses (
19) and IFN production (
21); therefore, complement available antiviral therapies, by blocking the inhibitory signaling pathways and some viral proteins such as core+1, may provide a specific new target to treat and prevent HCV infections. Due to small sample size of the current study, relevant studies are needed to determine whether the immune response of patients with CHC have a potential clinical value for diagnostic tests.