You will be shown a paragraph from a biomedical research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please extract text from the paragraph to answer the question. Do not include any text in your repsonse other than the answer.

Paragraph: The most studied mechanism is the accumulation of point mutations on immunodominant regions of surface proteins , making them no longer recognizable by previously generated neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) [1] [2] [3] [4] . Other escape mechanisms involving surface proteins include glycosylation of functionally pivotal residues (the glycan shield) or their association with host serum components (e.g., lipoproteins) in order to mask them from the immune system [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (Figure 1A ). Other known escape mechanisms are (i) a sort of protected route of virus spreading, such as cell-to-cell transmission [10, 11] ; (ii) the molecular mimicry between viral proteins and host self-antigens or (iii) the viral-induced stimulation of subfamily-restricted antibodies (Abs), both with obvious implications in viral-induced autoimmune diseases such as cryoglobulinemia for HCV [12] [13] [14] . The possible interfering effect of non-neutralizing Abs (non-nAbs) was originally proposed by Dulbecco et al. in 1956 [15] , to explain the apparent inhibition of virus neutralization exerted by some serum samples. Recently, this proposed immune escape mechanism has re-acquired a relevant interest, especially considering the potential clinical use of neutralizing anti-infectious nAbs or the design of epitope-based vaccinal approaches [16] . To date, two main mechanisms have been proposed for the interfering effects of non-nAbs: (i) direct binding interference by steric hindrance, (ii) inhibition of binding following conformational changes of the viral antigen bound by interfering non-nAbs. Moreover, it has been speculated that, even when not directly interfering with nAbs binding, non-nAbs may also lead to the enhancement of viral infection through interaction with Fc receptors or complement receptors [17] . Overall, possibly elicited non-nAbs in infected or vaccinated individuals may interfere with the neutralizing potential of nAbs. In more detail, these interfering Abs are able to bind viral proteins at the level of immunodominant but functionally irrelevant regions of viral proteins, decreasing or blocking the binding of nAbs to crucial viral epitopes (e.g., receptor-binding domains) ( Figure 1B ) [18] . A candidate antiviral monoclonal antibody (mAb) or polyclonal preparation should not be subjected to this mechanism of interference, or to the other escape mechanisms previously mentioned. Similarly, novel vaccinal approaches should avoid the elicitation of interfering Abs that could even worsen the disease in case of a real infection. In the following paragraphs we discuss these mechanisms with specific examples of their role in the course of the viral infections where they have been described. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a positive-sense single stranded RNA enveloped virus causing chronic hepatitis in most untreated patients (about 80%), with the consequent risk of developing cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. More than 170 million people (2%-3% of the world population) are infected worldwide, and a protective vaccine is not yet available, whereas therapeutic options are still limited and not completely effective [19] . For these reasons chronic HCV infection represents the major indication for liver transplantation in Europe and United States. Moreover, transplanted recipients are subject to high risk of graft re-infection and to a more severe and rapid progression of the liver disease [20] . Schematic representation of viral escape mechanisms from humoral immune response against surface viral proteins: point mutations on immunodominant regions, glycosylation of functionally pivotal residues (glycan shield) of the viral surface proteins and virus association with host serum components (e.g., lipoproteins) (B) Mechanisms of interference on nAb-mediated virus neutralization by the binding of interfering non-nAbs: non-neutralizing/interfering Abs might interfere with the binding of nAbs by steric hindrance following a spatial occupancy of their epitope or a competition for the binding; otherwise the binding of non-neutralizing/interfering Abs may induce conformational changes on the viral protein, thus affecting nAb binding to the antigen. Non-neutralizing/interfering Abs are depicted in black while nAbs in yellow. The HCV genome encodes a single polyprotein of about 3,000 aminoacids that is processed by host and viral proteases into at least 3 structural (core, E1 and E2) and 7 non-structural (p7, NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A and NS5B) proteins [21, 22] . In particular, the envelope type I membrane glycoproteins E1 and E2 form non-covalent heterodimers on the surface of the HCV envelope and allow clathrin-mediated virus endocytosis interacting consecutively with several entry cellular factors such as glycosaminoglycans [23] [24] [25] , low-density lipoprotein receptor [26, 27] , scavenger receptor class B type I [28] , the tetraspanin CD81 [29] , the tight-junction proteins claudin-1 and occludin, and the recently described Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 cholesterol absorption receptor [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] . The development of effective prophylactic and therapeutic approaches against this virus has been hindered mainly by its high mutation rate that gives rise to highly diversified viral variants, even within a single patient (quasispecies) [35] . Indeed, seven major genotypes, varying by up to 30% in nucleotide sequence, and several subtypes are recognized, each characterized by different clinical features such as different evolutionary rates to chronic liver diseases or different response to available antiviral therapies [21, 36, 37] . The development and use of anti-HCV mAbs capable of targeting structurally and functionally conserved regions of the highly variable viral particles are being considered as novel therapeutic tools [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] . In particular, the production of potent nAbs in acute infections has been shown to correlate with viral clearance in a single-source outbreak cohort [44] . Moreover, in vaccinated chimpanzees, a sustained Ab response to envelope glycoproteins E1 and E2 correlates with reduced viremia [45] , while the passive administration of neutralizing mAbs in a uPA-SCID chimeric mouse model of infection was able to protect against challenge with a HCV quasispecies inoculum [46] . Broadly cross-neutralizing human mAbs directed against the surface E2 glycoprotein of HCV (HCV/E2) are typically directed against functionally important regions within the CD81 binding site [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] , as well as against other critical residues highly conserved among different genotypes [55, 56] . This aspect is crucial for the possible therapeutic in vivo use of such mAbs, but it may not be sufficient since it has been recently supposed that other non-nAb populations may interfere with their neutralizing activity [39, [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . In fact, in persistently infected individuals anti-HCV/E2 cross-nAbs are generally elicited at low titer and in a late stage of the infection, leading to a poor control of viremia, whereas quasispecies-specific neutralizing or high titer non-nAbs are elicited earlier [53, [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] . Moreover, the in vivo use of anti-HCV polyclonal immunoglobulin preparations in both chimpanzees and humans has been disappointing, and clinical studies have shown that these preparations fail to prevent recurrent infections in patients after liver transplantation [63] . At this regard, a recent paper has suggested that the effect of some of these nAbs, directed against functionally important residues involved in the viral binding to CD81 (within epitope I, encompassing aminoacid residues 412-426), could be hindered by the presence of non-nAbs binding residues within epitope II on HCV/E2 (aminoacid residues 434-446) [58] . In particular, blocking of these interfering epitope II-specific Abs not only raised the neutralizing titer of serum containing both epitope I-and epitope II-specific Abs, but also uncovered a broader cross-genotype neutralizing response [58] . However, the role (and the existence itself) of these interfering Abs in influencing HCV infection is still controversial. Some authors recently corroborated the data of Zhang et al. by in vitro neutralization assays using serum-derived HCV of genotype 4a and polyclonal Abs derived from immunized goats with different conserved peptides spanning aminoacid residues 412-419, 430-447 and 517-531 of HCV/E2 glycoprotein [64] . In particular, this group found an interfering activity exerted by the weakly neutralizing 430-447-elicited Abs on the neutralizing activity of both the 412-419 and the 517-531-elicited Abs [64] . Interestingly, according to the putative model for E2 folding, all the three aforementioned regions would lie next to each other on the glycoprotein [48] . Therefore, this structural prediction possibly supports the interfering effect of epitope II-directed Abs. However, while this predicted structure is currently the best model available, these conclusions cannot be absolutely ascertained. For this purpose, the availability of E1-E2 crystal will certainly accelerate the fine elucidation of the spatial proximities of neutralizing and interfering mAbs on the E1-E2 structure and, consequently, structure-based vaccine progress. Moreover, it is noteworthy that individuals with Abs that target the region of E2 encompassing epitope I frequently harbor Abs that recognize the region containing epitope II, thus confirming the co-immunogenicity of these epitopes [58] . Finally, it has been shown both a low prevalence (less than 2.5%) and a low titer of epitope I-reactive Abs in sera from both chronic and acute resolved infections thus supporting the hypothesis of a conformational masking by adjacent regions such as that containing epitope II [65] . In fact, Zhang et al. originally put forward the idea that once epitope II is bound to an Ab, the site of epitope I becomes masked and can no longer be recognized by specific nAbs. Indeed, depletion of Abs to epitope II in plasma from a chronically infected HCV patient and vaccinated chimpanzees recovered an otherwise undetectable cross-genotype neutralizing activity [58] . Another possibility is that the initial binding of interfering Abs to the region containing epitope II may induce conformational changes on E2 that inhibit the binding by epitope I-directed Abs, as recently suggested by Lapierre et al. for other anti-HCV/E2 Abs [66] . Conversely, these conclusions were not supported in a recent study by Tarr et al. using murine (AP33) and rat (2/69a) mAbs, as well as human immunoglobulin fractions affinity-purified on linear peptides representing distinct HCV/E2 domains clustering within the regions 412-426 and 434-446 [67] . Although confirming the previously reported co-immunogenicity of these two regions, the authors failed to demonstrate any inhibition between these two groups of Abs. Considering their results, the authors indeed suggested that interference by non-nAbs, at least to the region encompassing residues 434-446, is not a possible mechanism for HCV persistence in chronically infected individuals, as it had been originally proposed by Zhang et al. In accordance with the findings of Tarr and colleagues, Keck et al. described anti-HCV/E2 human mAbs binding conformation-sensitive epitopes encompassing also some residues within the 434-446 interfering region [56] . These mAbs are broadly neutralizing and do not lead to viral escape mutants, demonstrating the functional importance of their epitopes. The authors conclude that not all Abs directed against epitope II are interfering, but they also speculate that the interfering activity could be limited to Abs recognizing linear epitopes within it [56] . Recently, we have partly confirmed the observations of Zhang et al. using a panel of anti-HCV/E2 mAbs: the well characterized mouse anti-HCV/E2 mAb AP33, whose epitope encompasses epitope I (aminoacid residues 412-423), and a weakly neutralizing human anti-HCV/E2 mAb (named e509), whose epitope encompasses epitope II [68] . In particular, we found that e509 is able to interfere with the neutralizing activity of AP33 on genotype 1a virus (strain H77). Instead, we found that e509 does not minimally interfere with the activity of two other broadly cross-neutralizing human anti-HCV/E2 mAbs, named e20 and e137 [49, 69] . Interestingly, we found that both e20 and e137 bind also residues within epitope II, at a higher affinity compared to e509, thus displacing it from the interfering epitope and, therefore, keeping unaltered their neutralizing activity. Thus, in our opinion, the described divergent observations reported above may depend on the different Ab specificities present in the polyclonal preparations used and, probably, also on the different HCV genotypes infecting the studied patients [68] . Moreover, the different strategies adopted in isolating epitope I-and epitope II-directed Abs followed in the studies above could explain the different data obtained. In fact, immunoglobulins purified on peptides representing distinct HCV/E2 regions [67] are obviously directed against linear epitopes; these preparations are certainly different from mAbs cloned using a full-length HCV/E2 glycoprotein, which are more probably directed against conformational epitopes including also residues outside the investigated linear regions [54] . To summarize, in the HCV field several works support the existence of interfering Ab populations and hypothesize their possible role in HCV persistence, as demonstrated using human plasma-derived immunoglobulin preparations, human mAbs, and sera of animals vaccinated with recombinant HCV/E2 peptides. The possible mechanism leading to the interference is still controversial, but both direct steric hindrance and induced antigen conformational changes have been hypothesized. On the other hand, other papers do not confirm these findings, suggesting that the putative interfering epitope II may be targeted by Abs endowed with a broadly neutralizing activity.

Question: What changes do viruses make to be unrecognizable to previously neutralizing antibodies?
point mutations on immunodominant regions of surface proteins