Ebola Virus Glycoprotein Counteracts BST-2/Tetherin Restriction in a Sequence-Independent Manner That Does Not Require Tetherin Surface Removal

BST-2/tetherin is an interferon-inducible protein that restricts the release of enveloped viruses from the surface of infected cells by physically linking viral and cellular membranes. It is present at both the cell surface and in a perinuclear region, and viral anti-tetherin factors including HIV-1 Vpu and HIV-2 Env have been shown to decrease the cell surface population. To map the domains of human tetherin necessary for both virus restriction and sensitivity to viral anti-tetherin factors, we constructed a series of tetherin derivatives and assayed their activity. We found that the cytoplasmic tail (CT) and transmembrane (TM) domains of tetherin alone produced its characteristic cellular distribution, while the ectodomain of the protein, which includes a glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor, was sufficient to restrict virus release when presented by the CT/TM regions of a different type II membrane protein. To counteract tetherin restriction and remove it from the cell surface, HIV-1 Vpu required the specific sequence present in the TM domain of human tetherin. In contrast, the HIV-2 Env required only the ectodomain of the protein and was sensitive to a point mutation in this region. Strikingly, the anti-tetherin factor, Ebola virus GP, was able to overcome restriction conferred by both tetherin and a series of functional tetherin derivatives, including a wholly artificial tetherin molecule. Moreover, GP overcame restriction without significantly removing tetherin from the cell surface. These findings suggest that Ebola virus GP uses a novel mechanism to circumvent tetherin restriction.Pathogenic viruses often have evolved mechanisms to neutralize host defenses that act at the cellular level to interfere with the virus life cycle. Such cellular restriction factors have been most extensively characterized for HIV-1 (38) and include the interferon-inducible membrane protein BST-2/HM1.24/CD317/tetherin (28, 40). If unchecked, tetherin blocks the release of newly formed HIV-1 particles from cells by physically tethering them at the cell surface (7, 28, 32, 40). In addition, tetherin has been shown to act against a broad range of enveloped viral particles, including retroviruses, filoviruses, arenaviruses, and herpesviruses (17, 18, 23, 35). In turn, certain viruses that are targeted by tetherin appear to have evolved counteracting activities, and anti-tetherin factors so far identified include HIV-1 Vpu; HIV-2 Env; simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) Nef, Vpu, and Env proteins; Ebola virus GP; and Kaposi''s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) K5 (11, 16, 18, 20, 23, 28, 36, 40, 44, 45).Tetherin is a homodimeric type II integral membrane protein containing an N-terminal cytoplasmic tail (CT), a single-pass transmembrane domain (TM), an ectodomain-containing predicted coiled-coil regions, two glycoslyation sites, three conserved cysteines, and a C-terminal glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor (2, 19, 31). This unusual topology, with two independent membrane anchors, has led to the suggestion that the retention of virions at the cell surface arises from tetherin''s ability to be inserted simultaneously in both host and viral membranes (28, 32, 41) or, alternatively, that dimers or higher-order complexes of tetherin conferred by the ectodomain mediate this effect (39). Interestingly, an artificial tetherin containing the same structural features as the native protein but constructed from unrelated sequences was able to restrict both HIV-1 and Ebola virus particles (32). This suggests that the viral lipid envelope is the target of tetherin and provides an explanation for tetherin''s broad activity against diverse enveloped viruses.A fraction of tetherin is present at the plasma membrane of cells (9, 14), and it has been proposed that viral anti-tetherin factors function by removing this cell surface fraction (40). This now has been shown to occur in the presence of HIV-1 Vpu (5, 7, 15, 26, 34, 40, 44), HIV-2 Env (5, 20), SIV Env (11), SIV Nef (15), and KSHV K5 (3, 23). In addition, certain anti-tetherin factors also may promote the degradation of tetherin, as has been observed for both HIV-1 Vpu (3, 5, 7, 10, 22, 26, 27) and KSHV K5 (3, 23), although Vpu also appears able to block tetherin restriction in the absence of degradation (8), and no effects on tetherin steady-state levels have been observed in the presence of either the HIV-2 or SIVtan Env (11, 20). Simply keeping tetherin away from the cell surface, or targeting it for degradation, may not be the only mechanism used by anti-tetherin factors, since it also has been reported that Vpu does not affect the levels of surface tetherin or its total cellular levels in certain T-cell lines (27).The interactions between tetherin and viral anti-tetherin factors show evidence of species specificity, suggesting ongoing evolution between viruses and their hosts. HIV-1 Vpu is active against human and chimpanzee tetherin but not other primate tetherins (10, 25, 34, 36, 44, 45), while SIV Nef proteins are active against primate but not human tetherins (16, 36, 44, 45). This suggests that, unlike tetherin restriction, the action of the anti-tetherin factors may involve specific sequence interactions. Indeed, the TM domain has been recognized as a target for HIV-1 Vpu (10, 15, 16, 25, 34), while a single point mutation introduced into the extracellular domain of human tetherin can block its antagonism by the SIVtan Env (11).In the present study, we investigated the roles of the different domains of tetherin in both promoting virus restriction and conferring susceptibility to the anti-tetherin factors encoded by HIV-1, HIV-2, and Ebola virus. We confirmed that tetherin restriction can be conferred by proteins that retain the two distinct membrane anchors, while signals for the cellular localization of the protein reside in the CT/TM domains of the protein. We found that the Vpu protein targets the TM domain of tetherin, while the HIV-2 Env targets the ectodomain of the protein. In contrast, the Ebola virus GP appears to use a non-sequence-specific mechanism to counteract tetherin restriction, since even an artificial tetherin could be successfully overcome by GP expression. Interestingly, Ebola virus GP counteracted tetherin restriction without removing the protein from the cell surface, suggesting that it is possible to overcome this restriction by mechanisms other than blocking tetherin''s cell surface expression.     

Endogenous Murine BST-2/Tetherin Is Not a Major Restriction Factor of Influenza A Virus Infection

BST-2 (tetherin, CD317, HM1.24) restricts virus growth by tethering enveloped viruses to the cell surface. The role of BST-2 during influenza A virus infection (IAV) is controversial. Here, we assessed the capacity of endogenous BST-2 to restrict IAV in primary murine cells. IAV infection increased BST-2 surface expression by primary macrophages, but not alveolar epithelial cells (AEC). BST-2-deficient AEC and macrophages displayed no difference in susceptibility to IAV infection relative to wild type cells. Furthermore, BST-2 played little role in infectious IAV release from either AEC or macrophages. To examine BST-2 during IAV infection in vivo, we infected BST-2-deficient mice. No difference in weight loss or in viral loads in the lungs and/or nasal tissues were detected between BST-2-deficient and wild type animals. This study rules out a major role for endogenous BST-2 in modulating IAV in the mouse model of infection.     

补体C3促进HIV-1感染的作用

补体是天然免疫的重要组成部分。C3是补体经典途径、旁路途径及甘露糖结合凝集素(MBL)途径的共同通路,在补体清除1型人免疫缺陷病毒(HIV-1)的过程中发挥重要作用。同时,C3在促进病毒黏膜进入、传播与储存、感染免疫细胞等方面也起重要作用。     

Cytotoxic T Cells from Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2-Infected Patients Frequently Cross-React with Different Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Clades

Knowledge of immune mechanisms responsible for the cross-protection between highly divergent viruses such as human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and HIV-2 may contribute to an understanding of whether virus variability may be overcome in the design of vaccine candidates which are broadly protective across the HIV subtypes. We demonstrate that despite the significant difference in virus amino acid sequence, the majority of HIV-2-infected individuals with different HLA molecules possess a dominant cytotoxic T-cell response which is able to recognize HIV-1 Gag protein. Furthermore, HLA-B5801-positive subjects show broad cross-recognition of HIV-1 subtypes since they mounted a T-cell response that tolerated extensive amino acid substitutions within HLA-B5801-restricted HIV-1 and HIV-2 epitopes. These results suggests that HLA-B5801-positive HIV-2-infected individuals have an enhanced ability to react with HIV-1 that could play a role in cross-protection.Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and HIV-2 are related human retroviruses that show various biological and structural differences. HIV-2 is found mainly in West Africa, whereas HIV-1 is spreading throughout the world. HIV-2 is less transmissible, and HIV-2-positive patients exhibit longer clinical latency periods than individuals infected with HIV-1 (23). A recent report has also shown that the mortality in HIV-2-infected individuals is only twice as high as in the uninfected population and, in the majority of adults, survival is not affected by HIV-2 status (31).Although the two viruses are similar in genomic organization, various genetic and enzymatic differences have been found at many stages of the retroviral life cycle. They differ significantly in terms of amino acid sequence, the more conserved being the Pol and Gag sequences, which exhibit less than 60% homology (17).Despite these differences, epidemiological data and animal studies have shown some evidence of cross-protection between the two viral infections. Travers et al. reported that HIV-2-infected women had a lower incidence of HIV-1 infection than did HIV-seronegative women in a cohort of commercial sexual workers in Dakar (37), and rhesus macaques immunized with a recombinant HIV-1 poxvirus vaccine are protected against HIV-2 challenge (2). These studies, though not conclusive (1, 6), suggest that differences in the virus may not necessarily preclude the development of defensive immunity to a subsequent pathogenic infection, an old-fashioned concept pioneered by Jenner, who used cowpox to vaccinate against human smallpox.The immunological basis of cross-protection is largely unknown, and a clear understanding of the role played by the humoral or cell-mediated immune response in HIV protection is still lacking. However, mounting evidence suggests that cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) response could be the key element. Indeed, the protection afforded in animal models against simian (13) and feline (12) immunodeficiency virus infections is closely correlated with the induction of specific CTL response, and HIV-1 and HIV-2 HLA-B35-restricted cross-reactive CTLs have been postulated to confer protection against repeated HIV exposure (33).CTLs recognize short viral peptides, 8 to 11 amino acids long, that are generated by the intracellular processing of endogenously synthesized viral antigens within the infected cells, which are expressed at the cell surface in the binding groove of HLA class I molecules. The specificity of the T-cell response is determined by the interaction of the antigen-specific T-cell receptor (TCR) with the peptide-HLA complex, and this interaction, together with non-antigen-specific signals, activates the CTLs (15).The presence of cross-reactive CTLs able to lyse HIV-1- or HIV-2-infected cells should be dependent on the extent of conservation between the two viruses within the epitopes selected by particular HLA class I molecules. It is well known that amino acid substitutions within the epitopes can abrogate the CTL response by inhibiting either HLA binding or TCR recognition (32). However, a number of recent studies have shown that T cells can recognize apparently unrelated peptides (10, 41), and crystallographic data have shown physical limits to the TCR epitope specificity due to the limited size of contact between the TCR and the peptide (14), suggesting a flexibility in T-cell recognition of antigen (19).Some individuals with a particular HLA profile which is responsible for presentation of the viral antigen and for selection of the T-cell repertoire may possess a CTL response not affected by mutations within the epitope, as has been demonstrated in subjects with HLA alleles B27 (28) and B35 (33). In these cases, amino acid substitutions within the HIV-1 and -2 epitopes were tolerated by the CTLs.In this study, we have investigated the extent of cross-reacting CTLs between HIV-2 and HIV-1 in a group of HIV-2-infected subjects with different HLA class I types. We have shown that despite differences in amino acid sequence between the two viruses, the majority of HIV-2-positive subjects possess CTLs which are able to recognize HIV-1 Gag protein.Furthermore, analysis of HLA profiles and the fine specificity of the cytotoxic response demonstrated that HLA-B5801-positive subjects show broad cross-recognition of HIV-1 isolates. These subjects mounted a CTL response that tolerated extensive amino acid substitutions within an HLA-B5801-restricted HIV-1 epitope.     

Antagonism to and Intracellular Sequestration of Human Tetherin by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 Envelope Glycoprotein

Tetherin (CD317/BST-2), an interferon-induced membrane protein, restricts the release of nascent retroviral particles from infected cell surfaces. While human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) encodes the accessory gene vpu to overcome the action of tetherin, the lineage of primate lentiviruses that gave rise to HIV-2 does not. It has been previously reported that the HIV-2 envelope glycoprotein has a Vpu-like function in promoting virus release. Here we demonstrate that the HIV-2 Rod envelope glycoprotein (HIV-2 Rod Env) is a tetherin antagonist. Expression of HIV-2 Rod Env, but not that of HIV-1 or the closely related simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) SIVmac1A11, counteracts tetherin-mediated restriction of Vpu-defective HIV-1 in a cell-type-specific manner. This correlates with the ability of the HIV-2 Rod Env to mediate cell surface downregulation of tetherin. Antagonism requires an endocytic motif conserved across HIV/SIV lineages in the gp41 cytoplasmic tail, but specificity for tetherin is governed by extracellular determinants in the mature Env protein. Coimmunoprecipitation studies suggest an interaction between HIV-2 Rod Env and tetherin, but unlike studies with Vpu, we found no evidence of tetherin degradation. In the presence of HIV-2 Rod Env, tetherin localization is restricted to the trans-Golgi network, suggesting Env-mediated effects on tetherin trafficking sequester it from virus assembly sites on the plasma membrane. Finally, we recapitulated these observations in HIV-2-infected CD4⁺ T-cell lines, demonstrating that tetherin antagonism and sequestration occur at physiological levels of Env expression during virus replication.Various stages of the replication cycle of primate lentiviruses can be targeted by host antiviral restriction factors (reviewed in reference 49). In addition to the well-characterized antiviral effects of members of the APOBEC3 family of cytidine deaminases, particularly APOBEC3G and -3F, and species-specific variants of tripartite motif family 5α, the release of nascent retroviral particles has recently been shown to be a target for a novel restriction factor, tetherin (CD317/bone marrow stromal cell antigen 2 [BST-2]) (31, 46). Tetherin is an interferon-inducible gene that was originally shown to impart a restriction on the release of mutants of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) that lack a vpu gene (31, 46). In tetherin-positive cells, mature Vpu-defective HIV-1 particles are retained on the cell surface, linked to the plasma membrane (PM) and each other via protease-sensitive tethers, and can be subsequently endocytosed and accumulate in late endosomes (30, 31). Tetherin is not HIV specific and restricts the release of virus-like particles derived from all retroviruses tested (18), as well as those of filoviruses and arenaviruses (18, 19, 39).Tetherin is a small (181-amino-acid) type II membrane protein with an unusual topology that exists mainly as a disulfide-linked dimer (34). It consists of an N-terminal cytoplasmic tail, a transmembrane anchor, an extracellular domain that includes three cysteine residues important for dimerization, a putative coiled-coil, and finally a glycophosphatidyinosityl-linked lipid anchor (22) that is essential for restriction (31). Tetherin localizes to retroviral assembly sites on the PM (18, 31), and this unusual structure is highly suggestive that tetherin restricts virion release by incorporation into the viral membrane and cross-linking virions to cells. Such a mechanism would make tetherin a powerful antiviral effector that can target an obligate part of most, if not all, enveloped virus assembly strategies. Moreover, since tetherin restriction has no specific requirement for virus protein sequences, to avoid its action, mammalian viruses have evolved to encode several distinct countermeasures that specifically inhibit tetherin''s antiviral function.The Vpu accessory protein antagonizes tetherin-mediated restriction of HIV-1 (31, 46). In the presence of Vpu, tetherin is downregulated from the cell surface (2, 46) and is targeted for degradation (10, 13, 14), although whether these processes are required for antagonism of tetherin function is unclear (27). HIV-1 Vpu displays a distinct species specificity in that it is unable to target tetherin orthologues from rhesus macaques or African green monkeys (14, 25). This differential sensitivity maps to the tetherin transmembrane domain, particularly residues that are predicted to have been under high positive selection pressure during primate evolution (14, 16, 25). This suggests that tetherin evolution may have been driven in part by viral countermeasures like Vpu. Vpu, however, is only encoded by HIV-1 and its direct simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) lineage precursors. The majority of SIVs, including the SIVsm, the progenitor of both HIV-2 and SIVmac, do not encode a Vpu protein (21). In some of these SIVs, tetherin antagonism was recently shown to map to the nef gene (16, 51). SIV Nef proteins, however, are generally ineffective against human tetherin because they target a (G/D)DIWK motif that was deleted from the human tetherin cytoplasmic tail sometime after the divergence of humans and chimpanzees (51). This raises the question of how HIV-2 is able to overcome human tetherin, as recent data show chronically HIV-2-infected CEM T cells have reduced tetherin levels on their surface (10).Interestingly, it has long been known that the envelope glycoprotein of certain HIV-2 isolates can stimulate the release of Vpu-defective HIV-1 virions from cells we now know to be tetherin positive (5, 6, 43). HIV and SIV Envs form trimeric spikes of dimers of the surface subunit (SU-gp105 in HIV-2/SIVmac and gp120 in HIV-1) that bind CD4 and the chemokine coreceptor and gp41 (the transmembrane [TM] subunit that facilitates fusion with and entry into the target cell). Envelope precursors (gp140 or gp160) are synthesized in the endoplasmic reticulum, where they become glycosylated and are exported to the surface via the secretory pathway (8). During transit through the Golgi apparatus and possibly in endosomal compartments, the immature precursors are cleaved by furin-like proteases to form mature spikes (15, 29). Multiple endocytosis motifs in the gp41 cytoplasmic tail lead to only minor quantities of Env being exposed at the cell surface at any given time (7, 40). Recent data demonstrated that the conserved GYxxθ motif, a binding site for the clathrin adaptor protein AP-2 (3), in the membrane-proximal region of HIV-2 gp41 is required to promote Vpu-defective HIV-1 release from HeLa cells (1, 32). Based on experiments with HIV-1/HIV-2 chimeric envelopes, an additional requirement in the extracellular component was suggested (1). In this study we set out to examine the Vpu-like activity of HIV-2 envelope in light of the discovery of tetherin. We demonstrate that the HIV-2 Env is a tetherin antagonist, and we provide mechanistic insight into the basis of this antagonism.     

The Transmembrane Domain of BST-2 Determines Its Sensitivity to Down-Modulation by Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Vpu

Bone marrow stromal cell antigen 2 (BST-2, also known as tetherin) restricts the production of a number of enveloped viruses by blocking virus release from the cell surface. This antiviral activity is counteracted by such viral factors as Vpu of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). Here, we report that Vpu antagonizes human BST-2 but not BST-2 derived from African green monkeys. The determinants of susceptibility to Vpu map to the transmembrane domain of BST-2. In accordance with this, expression of human BST-2 containing a modified transmembrane domain effectively blocks the replication of wild-type Vpu-expressing HIV-1 in CD4⁺ T cells. Furthermore, these BST-2 variants, as opposed to wild-type human BST-2, are refractory to Vpu-mediated down-regulation as a result of an attenuated interaction with Vpu. In view of the work by others pointing to a key role of the transmembrane domain of Vpu in promoting virus release, our data suggest that a direct interaction through the transmembrane domain of each of these two proteins is a prerequisite for Vpu to down-modulate BST-2.Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) encodes four accessory proteins, Vif, Vpr, Vpu, and Nef. Although they are dispensable for HIV-1 replication in certain transformed cell lines, these accessory proteins play important roles in HIV-1 pathogenesis by modulating host immunity and overcoming antagonism by cellular factors (10). For example, Vif counteracts APOBEC3G by recruiting the cullin 5-elongin B/C ubiquitin ligase complex and sending polyubiquitinated APOBEC3G to proteasomes for degradation (29). In the absence of Vif, newly synthesized APOBEC3G is incorporated into virus particles and hampers the production of infectious proviral DNA in the new round of infection (4, 10, 23). In addition to its role in down-modulating the cell surface expression of CD4 in infected T cells (11), Vpu stimulates HIV-1 production in cells such as HeLa cells (26). The mechanism behind this latter activity of Vpu was unknown until it was recently discovered that bone marrow stromal cell antigen 2 (BST-2, also known as tetherin, CD317, or HM1.24) blocks the release of HIV-1 and that this inhibitory effect is antagonized by viral Vpu (16, 25).BST-2 harbors an N-terminal transmembrane domain and a C-terminal glycosyl-phosphatidylinositol anchor that together create an unusual topology with both termini of BST-2 inserted into the plasma membrane (8, 18). This unique topology of BST-2 may underlie the mechanism for the retention of progeny virus particles at the cell surface (16). An indirect mechanism behind this tethering effect has not been ruled out, especially in view of the difficulty of detecting BST-2 protein in purified HIV-1 particles (14). In addition to HIV-1, a number of enveloped viruses are subject to inhibition by BST-2, including simian immunodeficiency virus, feline immunodeficiency virus, equine infectious anemia virus, Mason-Pfizer monkey virus, and Lassa virus, as well as Ebola and Marburg viruses (5, 6, 16, 19, 25). This suggests that BST-2 has a broad antiviral effect spectrum.The bst-2 gene has in its promoter the IRF-1/2 and ISGF3 response elements and thus belongs to the interferon-stimulated gene family (17). In line with its ability to impair the release of enveloped viruses, BST-2 has been demonstrated to be the effector in human embryonic kidney (HEK293T) cells that leads to the interferon-induced block of Vpu deletion-containing HIV-1 production (15). However, the African green monkey kidney cell line COS-7 responds to interferon treatment with a different outcome in that the production of both Vpu deletion-containing and Vpu-expressing HIV-1 is inhibited (15). This indicates that interferon induces a block to HIV-1 in COS-7 cells that cannot be overcome by Vpu. A conceivable candidate that creates this block is BST-2 in COS-7 cells (hereafter named agmBST-2). In this study, we provide evidence that depletion of endogenous BST-2 in COS-7 cells greatly alleviates interferon-induced inhibition of HIV-1 production. The refractoriness of agmBST-2 to Vpu results from a weak association of these two proteins and a resistance of agmBST-2 to Vpu-mediated down-regulation.     

Virological Synapse-Mediated Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 between T Cells Is Sensitive to Entry Inhibition

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) can disseminate between CD4⁺ T cells via diffusion-limited cell-free viral spread or by directed cell-cell transfer using virally induced structures termed virological synapses. Although T-cell virological synapses have been well characterized, it is unclear whether this mode of viral spread is susceptible to inhibition by neutralizing antibodies and entry inhibitors. We show here that both cell-cell and cell-free viral spread are equivalently sensitive to entry inhibition. Fluorescence imaging analysis measuring virological synapse lifetimes and inhibitor time-of-addition studies implied that inhibitors can access preformed virological synapses and interfere with HIV-1 cell-cell infection. This concept was supported by electron tomography that revealed the T-cell virological synapse to be a relatively permeable structure. Virological synapse-mediated HIV-1 spread is thus efficient but is not an immune or entry inhibitor evasion mechanism, a result that is encouraging for vaccine and drug design.As with enveloped viruses from several viral families, the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) can disseminate both by fluid-phase diffusion of viral particles and by directed cell-cell transfer (39). The primary target cell for HIV-1 replication in vivo is the CD4⁺ T-cell (13), which is infectible by CCR5-tropic (R5) and CXCR4-tropic (X4) viral variants (29). R5 HIV-1 is the major transmitted viral phenotype and dominates the global pandemic, whereas X4 virus is found later in infection in ca. 50% of infected individuals, and its presence indicates a poor disease progression prognosis (23). Cell-cell HIV-1 transfer between T cells is more efficient than diffusion-limited spread (8, 16, 32, 38), although recent estimates for the differential range from approximately 1 (42) to 4 (6) orders of magnitude. Two structures have been proposed to support contact-mediated intercellular movement of HIV-1 between T cells: membrane nanotubes (33, 43) and macromolecular adhesive contacts termed virological synapses (VS) (15, 17, 33). VS appear to be the dominant structure involved in T-cell-T-cell spread (33), and both X4 (17) and R5 HIV-1 (6, 15, 42) can spread between T cells via this mechanism.VS assembly and function are dependent on HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein (Env) engaging its primary cellular receptor CD4 (2, 6, 17). This interaction recruits more CD4 and coreceptor to the site of cell-cell contact in an actin-dependent manner (17). Adhesion molecules cluster at the intercellular junction and are thought to stabilize the VS (18). In parallel, viral Env and Gag are recruited to the interface by a microtubule-dependent mechanism (19), where polarized viral budding may release virions into the synaptic space across which the target cell is infected (17). The precise mechanism by which HIV-1 subsequently enters the target T-cell cytoplasm remains unclear: by fusion directly at the plasma membrane, fusion from within an endosomal compartment, or both (4, 6, 15, 25, 34).Viruses from diverse families including herpesviruses (9), poxviruses (22) and hepatitis C virus (44) evade neutralizing antibody attack by direct cell-cell spread, since the tight junctions across which the these viruses move are antibody impermeable. It has been speculated that transfer of HIV-1 across VS may promote evasion from immune or therapeutic intervention with the inference that the junctions formed in retroviral VS may be nonpermissive to antibody entry (39). However, available evidence regarding whether neutralizing antibodies (NAb) and other entry inhibitors can inhibit HIV-1 cell-cell spread is inconsistent (25). An early analysis suggested that HIV-1 T-cell-T-cell spread is relatively resistant to neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (NMAb) (12). A later study agreed with this conclusion by demonstrating a lack of permissivity of HIV-1 T-cell-T-cell spread, measured by transfer of viral Gag, to interference with viral fusion using a gp41-specific NMAb and a peptidic fusion inhibitor (6). In contrast, another analysis reported that anti-gp41-specific NMAb interfered effectively with HIV-1 spread between T cells (26). Inhibitors of the HIV-1 surface glycoprotein (gp120)-CD4 or gp120-CXCR4 interaction reduced X4 HIV-1 VS assembly and viral transfer if applied prior to mixing of infected and receptor-expressing target cells (17, 19), but the effect of these inhibitors has not been tested on preformed VS. Thus, the field is currently unclear on whether direct T-cell-T-cell infectious HIV-1 spread is susceptible or not to antibody and entry inhibitor-mediated disruption of VS assembly, and the related question, whether the VS is permeable to viral entry inhibitors, including NAb. Addressing these questions is of central importance to understanding HIV-1 pathogenesis and informing future drug and vaccine design.Since estimates reported in the literature of the relative efficiency of direct HIV-1 T-cell-T-cell spread compared to cell-free spread vary by approximately 3 orders of magnitude (6, 38, 42), and the evidence for the activity of viral entry inhibitors on cell-cell spread is conflicting, we set out to quantify the efficiency of infection across the T-cell VS and analyze the susceptibility of this structure to NAb and viral entry inhibitors. Assays reporting on events proximal to productive infection show that the R5 HIV-1 T-cell VS is approximately 1 order of magnitude more efficient than cell-free virus infection, and imaging analyses reveal that the VS assembled by HIV-1 is most likely permeable to inhibitors both during, and subsequent to, VS assembly. Thus, we conclude that the T-cell VS does not provide a privileged environment allowing HIV-1 escape from entry inhibition.     

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Vpr Induces Cell Cycle G2 Arrest through Srk1/MK2-Mediated Phosphorylation of Cdc25

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) Vpr induces cell cycle G₂ arrest in fission yeast (Schizosaccharomyces pombe) and mammalian cells, suggesting the cellular pathway(s) targeted by Vpr is conserved among eukaryotes. Our previous studies in fission yeast demonstrated that Vpr induces G₂ arrest in part through inhibition of Cdc25, a Cdc2-specific phosphatase that promotes G₂/M transition. The goal of this study was to further elucidate molecular mechanism underlying the inhibitory effect of Vpr on Cdc25. We show here that, similar to the DNA checkpoint controls, expression of vpr promotes subcellular relocalization of Cdc25 from nuclear to cytoplasm and thereby prevents activation of Cdc2 by Cdc25. Vpr-induced nuclear exclusion of Cdc25 appears to depend on the serine/threonine phosphorylation of Cdc25 and the presence of Rad24/14-3-3 protein, since amino acid substitutions of the nine possible phosphorylation sites of Cdc25 with Ala (9A) or deletion of the rad24 gene abolished nuclear exclusion induced by Vpr. Interestingly, Vpr is still able to promote Cdc25 nuclear export in mutants defective in the checkpoints (rad3 and chk1/cds1), the kinases that are normally required for Cdc25 phosphorylation and nuclear exclusion of Cdc25, suggesting that others kinase(s) might modulate phosphorylation of Cdc25 for the Vpr-induced G₂ arrest. We report here that this kinase is Srk1. Deletion of the srk1 gene blocks the nuclear exclusion of Cdc25 caused by Vpr. Overexpression of srk1 induces cell elongation, an indication of cell cycle G₂ delay, in a similar fashion to Vpr; however, no additive effect of cell elongation was observed when srk1 and vpr were coexpressed, indicating Srk1 and Vpr are likely affecting the cell cycle G₂/M transition through the same cellular pathway. Immunoprecipitation further shows that Vpr and Srk1 are part of the same protein complex. Consistent with our findings in fission yeast, depletion of the MK2 gene, a human homologue of Srk1, either by small interfering RNA or an MK2 inhibitor suppresses Vpr-induced cell cycle G₂ arrest in mammalian cells. Collectively, our data suggest that Vpr induces cell cycle G₂ arrest at least in part through a Srk1/MK2-mediated mechanism.     

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 Vpx-Gag Interaction

Incorporation of Vpx into human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) virus-like particles is mediated by the Gag polyprotein. We have identified residues 15 to 40 of Gag p6 and residues 73 to 89 of Vpx as being necessary for virion incorporation. In addition, we show enhanced in vitro binding of Vpx to a chimeric HIV-1/HIV-2 Gag construct containing residues 2 to 49 of HIV-2 p6 and demonstrate that the presence of residues 73 to 89 of Vpx allows for in vitro binding to HIV-2 Gag.     

Upregulation of BST-2/Tetherin by HIV infection in vivo

The interferon-inducible antiviral factor BST-2 prevents several enveloped viruses, including HIV, from escaping infected cells. The HIV protein Vpu antagonizes this host defense. Little is known about the expression of BST-2 during HIV infection in vivo and whether it can be modulated to the host's advantage. We studied the expression of BST-2 on blood cells from HIV-infected patients during the acute and chronic phases of disease as well as after antiretroviral treatment (ART). The expression of BST-2 was increased on mononuclear leukocytes, including CD4-positive T lymphocytes from HIV-positive patients, compared to that on cells of uninfected controls. The expression of BST-2 was highest during acute infection and decreased to levels similar to those of uninfected individuals after ART. Treatment of primary blood mononuclear cells in vitro with alpha interferon or with Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists increased the expression of BST-2 to levels similar to those found during infection in vivo. The interferon-induced levels were sufficient to overcome the Vpu protein in vitro, reducing the release of wild-type HIV. These data show that BST-2 is upregulated during HIV infection, consistent with its role as an interferon-stimulated gene. The data further suggest that this upregulation is sufficient to saturate the activity of Vpu and inhibit wild-type HIV.     

HIV-1附属蛋白特异性细胞毒性T细胞应答研究

人类免疫缺陷病毒(Humanimmunodeficiencyvirus,HIV)附属蛋白Nef、Vpu、Vpr和Vif在病毒复制中起着关键作用,并能被细胞毒性T细胞(CytotoxicTLymphocyte,CTL)识别。然而,对我国HIV感染者体内附属蛋白特异性的CTL应答研究比较少。本研究应用覆盖HIV-1B、C亚型附属蛋白(Nef、Vpu、Vpr和Vif)的142个肽段作为抗原,通过酶联免疫斑点实验(Enzyme-LinkedImmunospot,ELISPOT)检测61例中国HIV/AIDS患者和10例HIV-1血清阴性对照的HIV-1附属蛋白特异性CTL应答。无论对HIV-1B亚型还是HIV-1C亚型附属蛋白都能产生特异性CTL应答,特别是Nef区蛋白的反应频率和累积应答强度都较高(P<0.001),B、C亚型间的应答频率和累积应答强度都无显著差别(P>0.05),其免疫优势区也大致相同。附属蛋白特异性的累积CTL应答强度将近达到总应答的21%。这些结果表明尽管HIV-1附属蛋白的体积小,但它们在诱导特异性的CTL应答中发挥了重要作用,对评价HIV-1免疫应答的幅度和特异性以及研发针对中国人群的HIV疫苗有重要的意义。     

HIV-1附属蛋白特异性细胞毒性T细胞应答研究

人类免疫缺陷病毒(Human immunodeficiency virus, HIV)附属蛋白Nef、Vpu、Vpr和Vif 在病毒复制中起着关键作用,并能被细胞毒性T细胞(Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte, CTL)识别.然而,对我国HIV感染者体内附属蛋白特异性的CTL应答研究比较少.本研究应用覆盖HIV-1B、C亚型附属蛋白(Nef、Vpu、Vpr和Vif)的142个肽段作为抗原,通过酶联免疫斑点实验(Enzyme-Linked Immunospot,ELISPOT)检测61例中国HIV/AIDS患者和10例HIV-1血清阴性对照的HIV-1附属蛋白特异性CTL应答.无论对HIV-1B 亚型还是HIV-1C亚型附属蛋白都能产生特异性CTL 应答,特别是Nef区蛋白的反应频率和累积应答强度都较高(P＜0.001),B、C亚型间的应答频率和累积应答强度都无显著差别(P＞0.05),其免疫优势区也大致相同.附属蛋白特异性的累积CTL应答强度将近达到总应答的21%.这些结果表明尽管HIV-1附属蛋白的体积小,但它们在诱导特异性的CTL应答中发挥了重要作用,对评价HIV-1免疫应答的幅度和特异性以及研发针对中国人群的HIV疫苗有重要的意义.     

A Variant Macaque-Tropic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Is Resistant to Alpha Interferon-Induced Restriction in Pig-Tailed Macaque CD4+ T Cells

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) antagonizes innate restriction factors in order to infect and persistently replicate in a host. In a previous study, we demonstrated that HIV-1 NL4-3 with a simian immunodeficiency virus mne (SIVmne) vif gene substitution (HSIV-vif-NL4-3) could infect and replicate in pig-tailed macaques (PTM), indicating that APOBEC3 proteins are primary barriers to transmission. Because viral replication was persistent but low, we hypothesized that HSIV-vif-NL4-3 may be suppressed by type I interferons (IFN-I), which are known to upregulate the expression of innate restriction factors. Here, we demonstrate that IFN-α more potently suppresses HSIV-vif-NL4-3 in PTM CD4⁺ T cells than it does pathogenic SIVmne027. Importantly, we identify a variant (HSIV-vif-Yu2) that is resistant to IFN-α, indicating that the IFN-α-induced barrier can be overcome by HSIV-vif chimeras in PTM CD4⁺ T cells. Interestingly, HSIV-vif-Yu2 and HSIV-vif-NL4-3 are similarly restricted by PTM BST2/Tetherin, and neither virus downregulates it from the surface of infected PTM CD4⁺ T cells. Resistance to IFN-α-induced restriction appears to be conferred by a determinant in HSIV-vif-Yu2 that includes env su. Finally, we show that the Yu-2 env su allele may overcome an IFN-α-induced barrier to entry. Together, our data demonstrate that the prototype macaque-tropic HIV-1 clones based on NL4-3 may not sufficiently antagonize innate restriction in PTM cells. However, variants with resistance to IFN-α-induced restriction factors in PTM CD4⁺ T cells may enhance viral replication by overcoming a barrier early in the viral replication cycle.