Differences in the Regulatory and Functional Effects of the Us3 Protein Kinase Activities of Herpes Simplex Virus 1 and 2

Us3 protein kinases encoded by herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) and 2 (HSV-2) are serine/threonine protein kinases and play critical roles in viral replication and pathogenicity in vivo. In the present study, we investigated differences in the biological properties of HSV-1 and HSV-2 Us3 protein kinases and demonstrated that HSV-2 Us3 did not have some of the HSV-1 Us3 kinase functions, including control of nuclear egress of nucleocapsids, localization of UL31 and UL34, and cell surface expression of viral envelope glycoprotein B. In agreement with the observations that HSV-2 Us3 was less important for these functions, the effect of HSV-2 Us3 kinase activity on virulence in mice following intracerebral inoculation was much lower than that of HSV-1 Us3. Furthermore, we showed that alanine substitution in HSV-2 Us3 at a site (aspartic acid at position 147) corresponding to one that can be autophosphorylated in HSV-1 Us3 abolished HSV-2 Us3 kinase activity. Thus, the regulatory and functional effects of Us3 kinase activity are different between HSV-1 and HSV-2.Us3 protein kinases encoded by herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) and 2 (HSV-2) are serine/threonine protein kinases with amino acid sequences that are conserved in the subfamily Alphaherpesvirinae (6, 24, 36). Based on studies showing that recombinant Us3 mutants of HSV-1 and HSV-2 have significantly impaired viral replication and virulence in mice models, it has been concluded that both HSV-1 and HSV-2 Us3 protein kinases play important roles in viral replication and pathogenicity in vivo (25, 33, 41). In contrast, HSV-1 and HSV-2 Us3 protein kinases are not essential for growth in tissue culture cells (33, 36). Thus, recombinant Us3 mutants grow as well as wild-type viruses in Vero cells, and the mutants exhibit modestly impaired replication in HEp-2 cells (33, 36, 39, 40). The possible functions of Us3 have been extensively studied and gradually elucidated for HSV-1 Us3, but much less is known about HSV-2 Us3. These functions include (i) blocking apoptosis (1, 22, 30, 31, 35); (ii) promoting nuclear egress of progeny nucleocapsids through the nuclear membrane (39, 40, 45); (iii) redistributing and phosphorylating nuclear membrane-associated viral nuclear egress factors UL31 and UL34 (14, 37, 38) and cellular proteins, including lamin A/C and emerin (21, 27, 28); (iv) controlling infected cell morphology (13, 31, 32); and (v) downregulating cell surface expression of viral envelope glycoprotein B (gB) (12).To determine the molecular mechanisms for a viral protein kinase''s effects in infected cells, the kinase''s physiological substrates and its phosphorylation sites must be identified. This can involve studies showing that the altered phenotypes observed in cells infected with a mutant virus lacking the protein kinase activity is also detected in cells infected with a mutant virus in which the substrate''s phosphorylation sites have been modified by mutations. Although more than 15 potential HSV Us3 substrates have been reported, HSV-1 Us3 phosphorylation of only three substrates (Us3 itself, gB, and UL31) has been demonstrated to be linked directly with Us3 functions in infected cells (12, 13, 29, 41) as follows. (i) Us3 has been reported to autophosphorylate serine at position 147 (Ser-147), and this phosphorylation augments Us3''s kinase activity in infected cells (13, 41). Even though only a small fraction of Us3 is autophosphorylated at Ser-147 in infected cells, alanine replacement of Ser-147 in Us3 significantly reduced HSV-1 replication in the mouse cornea and pathogenic manifestations of herpes stroma keratitis and periocular skin disease in mice (41). These results indicated that Us3 kinase activity was, in part, regulated by autophosphorylation of Ser-147, and regulation of Us3 activity by autophosphorylation played a critical role in viral replication in vivo and HSV-1 pathogenesis. (ii) It has been reported that HSV-1 Us3 phosphorylates Thr-887 in the cytoplasmic tail of gB, and this phosphorylation downregulates the cell surface expression of gB (12). Us3 phosphorylation of gB at Thr-887 also has been proposed to be involved in the regulation of fusion of the nascent progeny virion envelope with the cell''s outer nuclear membrane, based on the observation that virions accumulated aberrantly in the perinuclear space in cells infected with mutant viruses carrying the amino acid substitution mutation T887A in gB and lacking the capacity to produce gH (45). The Us3 phosphorylation of gB at Thr-887 appeared to be critical for HSV-1 replication and pathogenesis in vivo, based on studies showing that the T887A substitution in the phosphorylation site in gB significantly reduced viral replication in the mouse cornea and pathogenic manifestations of herpes stroma keratitis and periocular skin disease in mice (Takahiko Imai, Ken Sagou, and Yasushi Kawaguchi, unpublished observations). (iii) It has been shown that Us3 phosphorylated some or all of the six serines in the UL31 N-terminal region, and this phosphorylation regulated the proper localization of UL31 and UL34 at the nuclear membrane and nuclear egress of nucleocapsids (29). Thus, the molecular basis of HSV-1 Us3 effects in infected cells have been gradually elucidated.However, the Us3 phosphorylation sites in Us3 itself and in gB are not conserved between HSV serotypes (12, 13). The amino acid residues in HSV-2 Us3 and gB corresponding to HSV-1 Us3 Ser-147 and gB Thr-887 are aspartic acid (Asp-147) and alanine (Ala-887), respectively. These results suggest that some HSV-1 Us3 functions, such as regulation of its own catalytic activity and control of gB expression on the cell surface, are not regulated by HSV-2 Us3 or are regulated in a manner(s) different from HSV-1 Us3. In agreement with this suggestion, there is a marked difference between HSV-1 and HSV-2 virulence in mice following intracerebral infection, with the HSV-1 Us3 null mutant being >10⁴-fold less virulent than the parent wild-type virus (25), while the HSV-2 Us3 null mutant was only ∼10-fold less virulent (33). Although these results were from different reports and the mouse strains used in the studies were different, they indicate that some HSV-1 Us3 functions are different from those of HSV-2 Us3.Therefore, we investigated differences in the biological properties of HSV-1 and HSV-2 Us3 protein kinases. It was of particular interest to examine whether Asp-147 in HSV-2 Us3 is required for its own kinase activity, since it is well established that acidic amino acids such as Asp or glutamic acid sometimes mimic the negative charges produced by phosphorylation (29, 46). In the present study, using a genetic manipulation system of HSV-2 with our newly constructed HSV-2 bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clone, we have shown that HSV-2 Us3 exhibited marked differences from HSV-1 Us3 in its catalytic functions, including the regulation of UL31/UL34 localization, nuclear egress of nucleocapsids, cell surface expression of gB, and virulence in mice. We also found that Asp-147 in HSV-2 Us3 was critical for its kinase activity, raising a possibility that the activity of Us3 kinases was regulated differently in HSV-1 and HSV-2.     

ATR and ATRIP Are Recruited to Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Replication Compartments Even though ATR Signaling Is Disabled

Although the herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) genome might be expected to induce a DNA damage response, the ATR kinase is not activated in infected cells. We previously proposed that spatial uncoupling of ATR from its interaction partner, ATRIP, could be the basis for inactivation of the ATR kinase in infected cells; however, we now show that ATR and ATRIP are in fact both recruited to HSV-1 replication compartments and can be coimmunoprecipitated from infected-cell lysates. ATRIP and replication protein A (RPA) are recruited to the earliest detectable prereplicative sites, stage II microfoci. In a normal cellular DNA damage response, ATR/ATRIP are recruited to stretches of RPA-coated single-stranded DNA in an RPA- and kinase-dependent manner, resulting in the phosphorylation of RPA by ATR in damage foci. In contrast, in HSV-1-infected cells, RPA is not phosphorylated, and endogenous phosphorylated RPA is excluded from stage II microfoci; in addition, the recruitment of ATR/ATRIP is independent of RPA and the kinase activity of ATR. Furthermore, we show that ATR/ATRIP play a beneficial role in viral gene expression and virus production. Although ICP0 has been shown to be important for partial inactivation of other cellular DNA repair pathways, we show that ICP0 is not responsible for the inactivation of ATR signaling and, furthermore, that neither ATR nor ATRIP is a target of ICP0 degradation. Thus, ATR and ATRIP may function outside the context of the canonical ATR damage signaling pathway during HSV-1 infection to participate in the viral life cycle.Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) is a large linear double-stranded DNA virus that replicates in the nucleus of the host cell. The incoming viral genome contains nicks and gaps (42), and cellular DNA repair machinery might be expected to recognize it as damaged, resulting in the activation of one or more cellular DNA damage pathways. Activation of DNA damage response pathways can result not only in repair of the damaged DNA but also in cell cycle arrest, gene silencing, and apoptosis (9). The later outcomes could result in suppression of viral gene expression and DNA replication and thus have negative consequences for lytic infection. Activation of a cellular DNA damage response during viral infection could, therefore, represent a form of intrinsic antiviral immunity (14, 15). On the other hand, HSV-1 and other DNA viruses which replicate in the nucleus have also been shown to utilize cellular DNA repair machinery to promote productive infection (28). Thus, HSV-1 has apparently evolved to manipulate the host DNA damage response by utilizing some components and inactivating others in an attempt to create an environment conducive to lytic viral infection.The cellular DNA damage response is regulated by the three phosphoinositide 3-kinase-related kinases (PIKKs), DNA-PK (DNA-dependent protein kinase), ATM (ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated), and ATR (ATM and Rad3-related) (1, 9). DNA-PK and ATM respond predominantly to double-strand breaks, and ATR responds to stalled replication forks and long stretches of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). DNA-PK is required for nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ), while ATM activation promotes homologous recombination. Interestingly, in some cell types, the catalytic subunit of DNA-PK (DNA-PKcs) is proteolytically degraded during infection by the immediate-early (IE) protein ICP0, a viral E3 ubiquitin ligase (25, 37), thereby resulting in the probable inactivation of the NHEJ pathway. ATM kinase activity, on the other hand, is activated during HSV-1 infection once viral DNA replication is initiated (26, 47, 56). Despite phosphorylation of several ATM targets, ATM signaling is also modulated by ICP0, which degrades the ubiquitin ligases RNF8 and RNF168. The function of these ubiquitin ligases is to promote the tethering of ATM pathway proteins at sites of cellular DNA damage (27). Thus, ICP0 functions to partially inactivate portions of both the DNA-PK- and ATM-mediated repair pathways.During a cellular DNA damage response, ATM activation and processing of DNA ends generate ssDNA adjacent to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), a structure that is known to activate ATR (9, 38). The ssDNA is coated by the cellular ssDNA binding protein, replication protein A (RPA), which then serves to recruit ATR through a direct interaction with ATR-interacting protein (ATRIP) (4, 12, 58). ATR signaling results in the phosphorylation of many substrates, including RPA and Chk1. During HSV-1 infection, the ATR substrates RPA and Chk1 are not phosphorylated (47, 54-56), indicating that ATR signaling may be disabled.A hallmark of HSV-1 infection is the reorganization of the infected-cell nucleus, resulting in the formation of large globular replication compartments as well as the rearrangement of cellular proteins involved in several homeostatic pathways. In addition to cellular DNA repair proteins, HSV-1 infection also causes the reorganization of components of the cellular protein quality control pathways, resulting in the formation of virus-induced chaperone-enriched (VICE) domains, which act to maintain nuclear protein quality control during infection (31). Viral gene expression, DNA replication, and encapsidation of viral genomes occur in replication compartments (24, 39, 41). In this work we revisit the study of proteins recruited to and restricted from replication compartments in an attempt to better understand how HSV-1 manipulates components of the cellular DNA damage response for its own benefit.     

The Direct Binding of Mrc1, a Checkpoint Mediator,to Mcm6, a Replication Helicase,Is Essential for the Replication Checkpoint against Methyl Methanesulfonate-Induced Stress

Mrc1 plays a role in mediating the DNA replication checkpoint. We surveyed replication elongation proteins that interact directly with Mrc1 and identified a replicative helicase, Mcm6, as a specific Mrc1-binding protein. The central portion of Mrc1, containing a conserved coiled-coil region, was found to be essential for interaction with the 168-amino-acid C-terminal region of Mcm6, and introduction of two amino acid substitutions in this C-terminal region abolished the interaction with Mrc1 in vivo. An mcm6 mutant bearing these substitutions showed a severe defect in DNA replication checkpoint activation in response to stress caused by methyl methanesulfonate. Interestingly, the mutant did not show any defect in DNA replication checkpoint activation in response to hydroxyurea treatment. The phenotype of the mcm6 mutant was suppressed when the mutant protein was physically fused with Mrc1. These results strongly suggest for the first time that an Mcm helicase acts as a checkpoint sensor for methyl methanesulfonate-induced DNA damage through direct binding to the replication checkpoint mediator Mrc1.Progression of the DNA replication machinery along chromosomes is a complex process. Replication forks pause occasionally when they encounter genomic regions that are difficult to replicate, such as highly transcribed regions, tRNA genes, and regions with specialized chromatin structure, like centromeric and heterochromatic regions (17). Replication forks also stall when treated with chemicals like methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), which causes DNA damage, or hydroxyurea (HU), which limits the cellular concentration of the deoxynucleoside triphosphate pool (17). Because de novo assembly and programming of the replisome do not occur after the onset of S phase (18), DNA replication forks must be protected from replicative stresses. The DNA replication checkpoint constitutes a surveillance mechanism for S-phase progression that safeguards replication forks from various replicative stresses (22, 38, 40), and malfunction of this checkpoint leads to chromosome instability and cancer development in higher organisms (4, 9).The Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA replication checkpoint mediator Mrc1 is functionally conserved and is involved directly in DNA replication as a component of the replisome (1, 8, 16, 19, 29, 30). Mrc1, together with Tof1 and Csm3, is required for forming a replication pausing complex when the fork is exposed to replicative stress by HU (16). The pausing complex subsequently triggers events leading to DNA replication checkpoint activation and hence stable replicative arrest. A sensor kinase complex, Mec1-Ddc2 (ATR-ATRIP homolog of higher eukaryotes), is then recruited to the complex (14, 16). Mec1-Ddc2-mediated phosphorylation of Mrc1 activates the pausing complex, and phosphorylated Mrc1 likely recruits Rad53 (a putative homolog of CHK2 of higher eukaryotes), which is then activated via phosphorylation by Mec1-Ddc2 (1, 16, 20, 30). Activated Rad53 subsequently elicits a stress responses, i.e., stabilization of replication forks, induction of repair genes, and suppression of late-firing origins (24). It remains unclear, however, whether DNA replication checkpoint activation is induced in response to DNA damage by MMS, a reagent commonly used to study the DNA replication stress response. Several lines of evidence have suggested that MMS-induced damage is also sensed directly by the replication machinery (38, 40).Although biochemical and genetic interaction data have placed Mrc1 at the center of the replication checkpoint signal transduction cascade, its molecular function remains largely unknown. The proteins Mrc1, Tof1, and Csm3 associate with the Mcm complex (8, 27), a heterohexameric DNA helicase consisting of Mcm2 to Mcm7 proteins which unwinds the parental DNA duplex to allow replisome progression (3, 12, 18, 31, 32, 35). The Mcm complex associates with a specific set of regulatory proteins at forks to form replisome progression complexes (8). In addition to Mcm, Tof1, Csm3, and Mrc1, replisome progression complexes include factors such as Cdc45 and the GINS complex that are also required for fork progression (13, 26, 31, 32, 39). Claspin, a putative Xenopus laevis homolog of Mrc1, is also reported to associate with Cdc45, DNA polymerase ɛ (Polɛ), replication protein A, and two of the replication factor C complexes in aphidicolin-treated Xenopus egg extracts (19). Recently, Mrc1 was reported to interact directly with Polɛ (23).The aim of this study was to provide mechanistic insight into Mrc1 function in the DNA replication checkpoint. For this purpose, it was essential to identify, among all the essential proteins in the replication machinery, a specific protein that interacts with Mrc1 and to examine the role of this interaction in the DNA replication checkpoint. We found that Mrc1 interacts with Mcm6 directly and specifically. When the interaction between Mrc1 and Mcm6 was impaired, cells no longer activated the DNA replication checkpoint in response to MMS-induced replicative stress. Interestingly and unexpectedly, this interaction was not required for DNA replication checkpoint activation in response to HU-induced replicative stress. Our results provide the first mechanistic evidence that cells use separate mechanisms to transmit replicative stresses caused by MMS and HU for DNA replication checkpoint activation.     

Host-Specific Replication of BK Virus DNA in Mouse Cell Extracts Is Independently Controlled by DNA Polymerase α-Primase and Inhibitory Activities

The activation of the human polyomavirus BK causes polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in immunocompromised humans. Studies of the virus have been restricted since the virus DNA replication is species specific. Cell-based and cell-free DNA replication systems, including the BK virus (BKV) monopolymerase DNA replication system using purified proteins, reproduce the species specificity (28). Therefore, the major host proteins comprising this assay, DNA polymerase α-primase (Pol-prim) and replication protein A (RPA), were intensively studied here. We demonstrate that Pol-prim plays a major role in the species specificity of BKV DNA replication. Both large subunits p180 and p68 of the enzyme complex have central functions in modulating the host specificity. Recently, an inhibitory activity of BKV DNA replication was described (C. Mahon, B. Liang, I. Tikhanovich, J. R. Abend, M. J. Imperiale, H. P. Nasheuer, and W. R. Folk, J. Virol. 83:5708-5717, 2009), but neither mouse Pol-prim nor mouse RPA diminishes cell-free BKV DNA replication. However, the inhibition of BKV DNA replication in mouse extracts depends on sequences flanking the core origin. In the presence of human Pol-prim, the inhibitory effect of mouse cell factors is abolished with plasmid DNAs containing the murine polyomavirus early promoter region, whereas the late enhancer region and the core origin are supplied from BKV. Thus, BKV replication is regulated by both Pol-prim, as a core origin species-specific factor, and inhibitory activities, as origin-flanking sequence-dependent factor(s).BK virus (BKV) is a human polyomavirus that was first isolated in the 1970s (15). Up to 90% of adults have serologic evidence of exposure to BKV, but in most humans the virus remains latent (25, 26). Almost all disease accompanied by BKV reactivation has been found in immunocompromised patients (22). In recent years, BKV has been associated with nephropathy (polyomavirus-associated nephropathy, or PVAN) in up to 10% of renal transplant patients. Once established, the disease results in allograft loss in 45 to 70% of the patients (18). Importantly, BKV preferentially replicates in human cells and less well in cells of other primates, and the virus is highly tumorigenic in rodents (21, 41, 44). This fact and the lack of sustainable viral replication in rodents or other convenient, experimental animal models have been an enormous setback to the study of PVAN.As with other members of the Polyomaviridae family, BKV virions are nonenveloped icosahedral particles with a diameter of 45 nm that contain a circular double-stranded DNA genome of 5.3 kb (1). In BKV and in other polyomaviruses, three genomic areas have been distinguished: (i) a noncoding control region including the origin of viral DNA replication, (ii) the early genes encoding large and small T antigens (TAgs), and (iii) the late genes which code for the capsid proteins VP-1, VP-2, and VP-3 and the agnoprotein (22).BKV DNA replication is similar to that of all other members of the Polyomaviridae family and requires only one viral protein, the multifunctional large TAg, whereas all other replication factors are supplied by the host (13, 14, 28, 39, 47). As the first step, TAg binds to the core origin, which contains the early palindrome, an AT-rich sequence, and the TAg binding site II, which consists of two pairs of G(G/A)GGC pentanucleotides. In the presence of ATP, TAg forms a double hexamer and partially melts the early palindrome (EP) and untwists the AT-rich sequence of the BKV core origin (5, 6, 14). Then the TAg double hexamers bidirectionally unwind the viral replication origin, which requires ATP hydrolysis. In the following process the two hexamers remain associated with each other, with the separated single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) threading through the hexameric channels (14). The viral core origin is sufficient to constitute a functional replication origin, but the presence of auxiliary domains increases its activity 5- to 100-fold in vivo (16, 30). After the viral TAg unwinds the core origin and its flanking sequences, replication protein A (RPA), the main eukaryotic ssDNA-binding protein, covers the resulting stretches of ssDNA, whereas topoisomerase I releases the resulting torsional stress and enhances initiation of DNA replication (5, 7, 43). Then, DNA polymerase α-primase (Pol-prim) is loaded onto this TAg-RPA-topoisomerase 1-DNA complex, yielding a functional initiation complex. In the following step, Pol-prim synthesizes short RNA primers at the origin, and these RNA primers are elongated by the DNA polymerase function of the enzyme complex (9, 35, 47). After a polymerase switch from Pol-prim to DNA polymerase δ (Pol δ) with the help of RPA, replication factor C (RFC), and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), processive DNA synthesis is completed by Pol δ in association with PCNA, the sliding clamp, on the leading strand (38, 51, 54, 59). Lagging-strand synthesis is discontinuous, and multiple initiation events catalyzed by Pol-prim must take place. Again, after the elongation of the RNA primers by Pol-prim, DNA synthesis is switched to Pol δ, which then synthesizes the complete Okazaki fragments. The maturation of these Okazaki fragments requires the collaboration of RNase H, PCNA, flap endonuclease 1 (Fen-1), Pol δ, and DNA ligase I to establish a continuous strand also on the lagging strand (9, 19, 20, 51, 55).TAg functions in infected cells rely heavily on specific associations with host proteins; for example, TAg interacts with RPA, Pol-prim, and topoisomerase I to replicate viral DNA. Selective interactions with the host p180 and p48 subunits of Pol-prim were shown to be responsible for species-specific replication of simian virus 40 (SV40) and murine polyomavirus (mPyV) DNAs, respectively (8, 47, 50). The subunits of Pol-prim are highly conserved since 88, 80, 89, and 90% of the amino acids are identical between human and murine p180, p68, p58, and p48, respectively. Biochemical studies have shown that TAg interacts independently with all four subunits of Pol-prim (8, 12, 57). Moreover, the p180, p58, and p48 subunits of Pol-prim also physically bind to RPA (7, 11, 57). RPA and TAg binding sites in the Pol-prim complex are essential for SV40 DNA replication in vitro since the presence of an excess of these purified binding peptides diminishes viral DNA replication in vitro (52, 53). Interestingly, species specificity requires the viral origin of DNA replication, whereas physical protein-protein interactions of purified protein complexes are not host specific in the absence of viral origin DNA (29, 42).Consistent with other polyomaviruses, analyses of BKV TAg-dependent DNA replication recently revealed that BKV DNA cannot be replicated in murine cells and that cell extracts are able to mimic this behavior (28). Furthermore, a BKV DNA replication system with the purified human proteins Pol-prim, RPA, topoisomerase I, and BKV TAg was inhibited by murine extracts, whereas SV40 DNA replication was not. Further investigations revealed that the presence of inhibitory activities (IAs) in extracts from murine cells blocks BKV DNA replication at an early step of TAg-mediated unwinding of the BKV origin of replication. Detailed analyses using the BKV monopolymerase DNA replication system, which we report here, show that Pol-prim functions as a species-specific factor associated with core origin functions. In addition, we reveal that the inhibitory activities in murine extracts, which are associated with origin-flanking sequence-dependent factor(s), regulate BKV DNA replication in murine cell extracts in a Pol-prim-independent manner.     

Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Glycoprotein E Mediates Retrograde Spread from Epithelial Cells to Neurites

In animal models of infection, glycoprotein E (gE) is required for efficient herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) spread from the inoculation site to the cell bodies of innervating neurons (retrograde direction). Retrograde spread in vivo is a multistep process, in that HSV-1 first spreads between epithelial cells at the inoculation site, then infects neurites, and finally travels by retrograde axonal transport to the neuron cell body. To better understand the role of gE in retrograde spread, we used a compartmentalized neuron culture system, in which neurons were infected in the presence or absence of epithelial cells. We found that gE-deleted HSV-1 (NS-gEnull) retained retrograde axonal transport activity when added directly to neurites, in contrast to the retrograde spread defect of this virus in animals. To better mimic the in vivo milieu, we overlaid neurites with epithelial cells prior to infection. In this modified system, virus infects epithelial cells and then spreads to neurites, revealing a 100-fold retrograde spread defect for NS-gEnull. We measured the retrograde spread defect of NS-gEnull from a variety of epithelial cell lines and found that the magnitude of the spread defect from epithelial cells to neurons correlated with epithelial cell plaque size defect, indicating that gE plays a similar role in both types of spread. Therefore, gE-mediated spread between epithelial cells and neurites likely explains the retrograde spread defect of gE-deleted HSV-1 in vivo.Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) is an alphaherpesvirus that characteristically infects skin and mucosal surfaces before spreading to sensory neurons, where it establishes a lifelong persistent infection. The virus periodically returns to the periphery via sensory axons and causes recurrent lesions as well as asymptomatic shedding. This life cycle requires viral transport along axons in two directions: toward the neuron cell body (retrograde direction) and away from the neuron cell body (anterograde direction).Many studies of alphaherpesvirus neuronal spread have focused on pseudorabies virus (PRV), a virus whose natural host is the pig. Three PRV proteins, glycoprotein E (gE), gI, and Us9, have been shown to mediate anterograde neuronal spread both in animal models of infection and in cultured neurons. However, these three proteins are dispensable for retrograde spread (3, 8, 11, 12, 31, 46). In contrast, numerous animal models of infection have shown that HSV-1 gE is required for retrograde spread from the inoculation site to the cell bodies of innervating neurons (4, 9, 44, 56). In the murine flank model, wild-type (WT) virus replicates in the skin and then infects sensory neurons and spreads in a retrograde direction to the dorsal root ganglia (DRG). In this model, gE-deleted HSV-1 replicates in the skin but is not detected in the DRG (9, 44). This phenotype differs from gE-deleted PRV, which is able to reach the DRG at WT levels (8). Thus, unlike PRV, gE-deleted HSV-1 viruses have a retrograde spread defect in vivo.HSV-1 gE is a 552-amino-acid type I membrane protein found in the virion membrane as well as in the trans-Golgi and plasma membranes of infected cells (1). gE forms a heterodimer with another viral glycoprotein, gI. The gE/gI complex is important for HSV-1 immune evasion through its Fc receptor activity. gE/gI binds to the Fc domain of antibodies directed against other viral proteins, sequestering these antibodies and blocking antibody effector functions (27, 32, 40). Additionally, gE/gI promotes spread between epithelial cells. Viruses lacking either gE or gI form characteristically small plaques in cell culture and small inoculation site lesions in mice (4, 9, 18, 40, 58). In animal models, gE and gI also mediate viral spread in both anterograde and retrograde directions (4, 19, 44, 56).In order to better understand the role of gE in HSV-1 retrograde neuronal spread, we employed a compartmentalized neuron culture system that has been used to study directional neuronal spread of PRV and West Nile virus (12, 14, 45). In the Campenot chamber system, neurites are contained in a compartment that is separate from their corresponding cell bodies. Therefore, spread in an exclusively retrograde direction can be measured by infecting neurites and detecting spread to neuron cell bodies.HSV-1 replication requires retrograde transport of incoming viral genomes to the nucleus. In neurites, fusion between viral and cellular membranes occurs at the plasma membrane (43, 48). Upon membrane fusion, the capsid and a subset of tegument proteins (the inner tegument) dissociate from glycoproteins and outer tegument proteins, which remain at the plasma membrane (28, 38). Unenveloped capsids and the associated inner tegument proteins are then transported in the retrograde direction to the nucleus (7, 48, 49).For both neurons and epithelial cells, retrograde transport is dependent upon microtubules, ATP, the retrograde microtubule motor dynein, and the dynein cofactor dynactin (22, 34, 49, 52). Several viral proteins interact with components of the dynein motor complex (23, 39, 60). However, none of these proteins suggest a completely satisfactory mechanism by which viral retrograde transport occurs, either because they are not components of the complex that is transported to the nucleus (UL34, UL9, VP11/12) or because capsids lacking that protein retain retrograde transport activity (VP26) (2, 17, 21, 28, 37). This implies that additional viral proteins are involved in retrograde trafficking.We sought to better characterize the role of gE in retrograde spread and found that gE is dispensable for retrograde axonal transport; however, it promotes HSV-1 spread from epithelial cells to neurites. This epithelial cell-to-neuron spread defect provides a plausible explanation for the retrograde spread defect of gE-deleted HSV-1 in animal models of infection.     

Early Innate Recognition of Herpes Simplex Virus in Human Primary Macrophages Is Mediated via the MDA5/MAVS-Dependent and MDA5/MAVS/RNA Polymerase III-Independent Pathways

Innate recognition of viruses is mediated by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) triggering expression of antiviral interferons (IFNs) and proinflammatory cytokines. In mice, Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) and TLR9 as well as intracellular nucleotide-sensing pathways have been shown to recognize herpes simplex virus (HSV). Here, we describe how human primary macrophages recognize early HSV infection via intracellular pathways. A number of inflammatory cytokines, IFNs, and IFN-stimulated genes were upregulated after HSV infection. We show that early recognition of HSV and induction of IFNs and inflammatory cytokines are independent of TLR2 and TLR9, since inhibition of TLR2 using TLR2 neutralizing antibodies did not affect virus-induced responses and the macrophages were unresponsive to TLR9 stimulation. Instead, HSV recognition involves intracellular recognition systems, since induction of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and IFNs was dependent on virus entry and replication. Importantly, expression of IFNs was strongly inhibited by small interfering RNA (siRNA) knockdown of MAVS, but this MAVS-dependent IFN induction occurred independently of the recently discovered polymerase III (Pol III)/RIG-I DNA sensing system. In contrast, induction of TNF-α was largely independent of MAVS, suggesting that induction of inflammatory cytokines during HSV infection proceeds via a novel pathway. Transfection with ODN2006, a broad inhibitor of intracellular nucleotide recognition, revealed that nucleotide-sensing systems are employed to induce both IFNs and TNF-α. Finally, using siRNA knockdown, we found that MDA5, but not RIG-I, was the primary mediator of HSV recognition. Thus, innate recognition of HSV by human primary macrophages occurs via two distinct intracellular nucleotide-sensing pathways responsible for induction of IFNs and inflammatory cytokine expression, respectively.Virus recognition is essential for activation of innate antiviral immune defense and the subsequent induction of acquired immunity. Conserved pathogen motifs, termed pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), are recognized by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs). Virus-recognizing PRRs include Toll-like receptors (TLRs), RIG-I-like receptors (RLRs), and a number of intracellular DNA receptors. Several TLRs have been attributed roles in the recognition of virus. TLR2 and TLR4 recognize viral surface structures (3, 6, 18, 31), TLR3 recognizes double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) (2), and TLR7/8 and TLR9 function as signaling receptors for viral single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) (8, 11, 21) and CpG DNA (12, 20), respectively.Within the cell, cytoplasmic RLRs RIG-I and MDA5 both recognize accumulation of virus-derived dsRNA; in addition, RIG-I recognizes 5′-triphosphated RNA (14, 27, 39, 40). In addition to the RLRs, a number of receptors recognize foreign DNA. Presently, three DNA receptors have been identified: Z-DNA binding protein 1 (ZBP-1, or DAI) (36) and RNA polymerase III (Pol III) (1, 4) both mediate interferon (IFN) and cytokine production, whereas the AIM2 inflammasome is involved in caspase 1 activation in response to cytoplasmic dsDNA (13).Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and HSV-2 are two closely related human DNA viruses associated with a number of serious diseases, including orofacial infections, encephalitis, and genital infections (34). Macrophages play an important role in the first line of defense against viral infection via production of IFNs, cytokines, and chemokines that regulate the progress of the virus infection and activate and support appropriate defense mechanisms (9, 10, 24).TLR2, TLR3, and TLR9 have been identified as mediators of proinflammatory cytokine production during HSV infections. TLR2 mediates an overzealous inflammatory cytokine response following HSV-1 infection in mice, promoting mononuclear cell infiltration of the brain and development of encephalitis (18). TLR3 mediates type I and III IFN production in human fibroblasts (41). TLR9 recognizes genomic DNA from HSV-1 and HSV-2 in murine plasmacytoid dendritic cells (DCs) (17, 20) and mediates tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and CCL5 production in murine macrophages (22). Both TLR2 and TLR9 mediate recognition of HSV and cytokine production in murine conventional DCs (35). HSV is recognized by an RLR/MAVS-dependent mechanism in murine macrophages and mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) (5, 29, 30). Recent data suggest that RNA Pol III mediates IFN production following HSV-1 infection and transfection with HSV-1 DNA in macrophage-like RAW 264.7 cells (4). Finally, murine L929 fibroblast-like cells are moderately inhibited in their ability to produce IFN after HSV-1 infection when ZBP-1 is knocked down (19, 36). Thus, several PRRs have been reported to recognize HSV-1 in murine cells and different cell lines, but the pathways responsible for sensing this virus in human primary macrophages and their impact on cytokine expression have not previously been described.In this work, we investigate the recognition pathways underlying HSV-induced cytokine and chemokine expression in human primary macrophages. We demonstrate that HSV-1-induced IFN and cytokine expression is independent of TLR2 and TLR9 but highly dependent on virus replication and intracellular nucleotide recognition systems. Specifically, induction of IFNs is dependent on MAVS and MDA5, whereas TNF-α is induced by a novel intracellular nucleotide-sensing system.