Virus Entry via the Alternative Coreceptors CCR3 and FPRL1 Differs by Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Subtype

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infects target cells by binding to CD4 and a chemokine receptor, most commonly CCR5. CXCR4 is a frequent alternative coreceptor (CoR) in subtype B and D HIV-1 infection, but the importance of many other alternative CoRs remains elusive. We have analyzed HIV-1 envelope (Env) proteins from 66 individuals infected with the major subtypes of HIV-1 to determine if virus entry into highly permissive NP-2 cell lines expressing most known alternative CoRs differed by HIV-1 subtype. We also performed linear regression analysis to determine if virus entry via the major CoR CCR5 correlated with use of any alternative CoR and if this correlation differed by subtype. Virus pseudotyped with subtype B Env showed robust entry via CCR3 that was highly correlated with CCR5 entry efficiency. By contrast, viruses pseudotyped with subtype A and C Env proteins were able to use the recently described alternative CoR FPRL1 more efficiently than CCR3, and use of FPRL1 was correlated with CCR5 entry. Subtype D Env was unable to use either CCR3 or FPRL1 efficiently, a unique pattern of alternative CoR use. These results suggest that each subtype of circulating HIV-1 may be subject to somewhat different selective pressures for Env-mediated entry into target cells and suggest that CCR3 may be used as a surrogate CoR by subtype B while FPRL1 may be used as a surrogate CoR by subtypes A and C. These data may provide insight into development of resistance to CCR5-targeted entry inhibitors and alternative entry pathways for each HIV-1 subtype.Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infects target cells by binding first to CD4 and then to a coreceptor (CoR), of which C-C chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) is the most common (6, 53). CXCR4 is an additional CoR for up to 50% of subtype B and D HIV-1 isolates at very late stages of disease (4, 7, 28, 35). Many other seven-membrane-spanning G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) have been identified as alternative CoRs when expressed on various target cell lines in vitro, including CCR1 (76, 79), CCR2b (24), CCR3 (3, 5, 17, 32, 60), CCR8 (18, 34, 38), GPR1 (27, 65), GPR15/BOB (22), CXCR5 (39), CXCR6/Bonzo/STRL33/TYMSTR (9, 22, 25, 45, 46), APJ (26), CMKLR1/ChemR23 (49, 62), FPLR1 (67, 68), RDC1 (66), and D6 (55). HIV-2 and simian immunodeficiency virus SIVmac isolates more frequently show expanded use of these alternative CoRs than HIV-1 isolates (12, 30, 51, 74), and evidence that alternative CoRs other than CXCR4 mediate infection of primary target cells by HIV-1 isolates is sparse (18, 30, 53, 81). Genetic deficiency in CCR5 expression is highly protective against HIV-1 transmission (21, 36), establishing CCR5 as the primary CoR. The importance of alternative CoRs other than CXCR4 has remained elusive despite many studies (1, 30, 70, 81). Expansion of CoR use from CCR5 to include CXCR4 is frequently associated with the ability to use additional alternative CoRs for viral entry (8, 16, 20, 63, 79) in most but not all studies (29, 33, 40, 77, 78). This finding suggests that the sequence changes in HIV-1 env required for use of CXCR4 as an additional or alternative CoR (14, 15, 31, 37, 41, 57) are likely to increase the potential to use other alternative CoRs.We have used the highly permissive NP-2/CD4 human glioma cell line developed by Soda et al. (69) to classify virus entry via the alternative CoRs CCR1, CCR3, CCR8, GPR1, CXCR6, APJ, CMKLR1/ChemR23, FPRL1, and CXCR4. Full-length molecular clones of 66 env genes from most prevalent HIV-1 subtypes were used to generate infectious virus pseudotypes expressing a luciferase reporter construct (19, 57). Two types of analysis were performed: the level of virus entry mediated by each alternative CoR and linear regression of entry mediated by CCR5 versus all other alternative CoRs. We thus were able to identify patterns of alternative CoR use that were subtype specific and to determine if use of any alternative CoR was correlated or independent of CCR5-mediated entry. The results obtained have implications for the evolution of env function, and the analyses revealed important differences between subtype B Env function and all other HIV-1 subtypes.     

mTORC1-Activated S6K1 Phosphorylates Rictor on Threonine 1135 and Regulates mTORC2 Signaling

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a conserved Ser/Thr kinase that forms two functionally distinct complexes important for nutrient and growth factor signaling. While mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) regulates mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis, mTORC2 plays an important role in the phosphorylation and subsequent activation of Akt. Interestingly, mTORC1 negatively regulates Akt activation, but whether mTORC1 signaling directly targets mTORC2 remains unknown. Here we show that growth factors promote the phosphorylation of Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), an essential subunit of mTORC2. We found that Rictor phosphorylation requires mTORC1 activity and, more specifically, the p70 ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1). We identified several phosphorylation sites in Rictor and found that Thr1135 is directly phosphorylated by S6K1 in vitro and in vivo, in a rapamycin-sensitive manner. Phosphorylation of Rictor on Thr1135 did not affect mTORC2 assembly, kinase activity, or cellular localization. However, cells expressing a Rictor T1135A mutant were found to have increased mTORC2-dependent phosphorylation of Akt. In addition, phosphorylation of the Akt substrates FoxO1/3a and glycogen synthase kinase 3α/β (GSK3α/β) was found to be increased in these cells, indicating that S6K1-mediated phosphorylation of Rictor inhibits mTORC2 and Akt signaling. Together, our results uncover a new regulatory link between the two mTOR complexes, whereby Rictor integrates mTORC1-dependent signaling.The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is an evolutionarily conserved phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-related Ser/Thr kinase that integrates signals from nutrients, energy sufficiency, and growth factors to regulate cell growth as well as organ and body size in a variety of organisms (reviewed in references 4, 38, 49, and 77). mTOR was discovered as the molecular target of rapamycin, an antifungal agent used clinically as an immunosuppressant and more recently as an anticancer drug (5, 20). Recent evidence indicates that deregulation of the mTOR pathway occurs in a majority of human cancers (12, 18, 25, 46), suggesting that rapamycin analogs may be potent antineoplastic therapeutic agents.mTOR forms two distinct multiprotein complexes, the rapamycin-sensitive and -insensitive mTOR complexes 1 and 2 (mTORC1 and mTORC2), respectively (6, 47). In cells, rapamycin interacts with FKBP12 and targets the FKBP12-rapamycin binding (FRB) domain of mTORC1, thereby inhibiting some of its function (13, 40, 66). mTORC1 is comprised of the mTOR catalytic subunit and four associated proteins, Raptor (regulatory associated protein of mTOR), mLST8 (mammalian lethal with sec13 protein 8), PRAS40 (proline-rich Akt substrate of 40 kDa), and Deptor (28, 43, 44, 47, 59, 73, 74). The small GTPase Rheb (Ras homolog enriched in brain) is a key upstream activator of mTORC1 that is negatively regulated by the tuberous sclerosis complex 1 (TSC1)/TSC2 GTPase-activating protein complex (reviewed in reference 35). mTORC1 is activated by PI3K and Ras signaling through direct phosphorylation and inactivation of TSC2 by Akt, extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), and p90 ribosomal protein S6 kinase (RSK) (11, 37, 48, 53, 63). mTORC1 activity is also regulated at the level of Raptor. Whereas low cellular energy levels negatively regulate mTORC1 activity through phosphorylation of Raptor by AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) (27), growth signaling pathways activating the Ras/ERK pathway positively regulate mTORC1 activity through direct phosphorylation of Raptor by RSK (10). More recent evidence has also shown that mTOR itself positively regulates mTORC1 activity by directly phosphorylating Raptor at proline-directed sites (20a, 75). Countertransport of amino acids (55) and amino acid signaling through the Rag GTPases were also shown to regulate mTORC1 activity (45, 65). When activated, mTORC1 phosphorylates two main regulators of mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis, the AGC (protein kinase A, G, and C) family kinase p70 ribosomal S6 kinase 1 (S6K1) and eukaryotic initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1 (4E-BP1), and thus stimulates protein synthesis and cellular growth (50, 60).The second mTOR complex, mTORC2, is comprised of mTOR, Rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), mSin1 (mammalian stress-activated mitogen-activated protein kinase-interacting protein 1), mLST8, PRR5 (proline-rich region 5), and Deptor (21, 39, 58, 59, 66, 76, 79). Rapamycin does not directly target and inhibit mTORC2, but long-term treatment with this drug was shown to correlate with mTORC2 disassembly and cytoplasmic accumulation of Rictor (21, 39, 62, 79). Whereas mTORC1 regulates hydrophobic motif phosphorylation of S6K1, mTORC2 has been shown to phosphorylate other members of the AGC family of kinases. Biochemical and genetic evidence has demonstrated that mTORC2 phosphorylates Akt at Ser473 (26, 39, 68, 70), thereby contributing to growth factor-mediated Akt activation (6, 7, 52). Deletion or knockdown of the mTORC2 components mTOR, Rictor, mSin1, and mLST8 has a dramatic effect on mTORC2 assembly and Akt phosphorylation at Ser473 (26, 39, 79). mTORC2 was also shown to regulate protein kinase Cα (PKCα) (26, 66) and, more recently, serum- and glucocorticoid-induced protein kinase 1 (SGK1) (4, 22). Recent evidence implicates mTORC2 in the regulation of Akt and PKCα phosphorylation at their turn motifs (19, 36), but whether mTOR directly phosphorylates these sites remains a subject of debate (4).Activation of mTORC1 has been shown to negatively regulate Akt phosphorylation in response to insulin or insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) (reviewed in references 30 and 51). This negative regulation is particularly evident in cell culture models with defects in the TSC1/TSC2 complex, where mTORC1 and S6K1 are constitutively activated. Phosphorylation of insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) by mTORC1 (72) and its downstream target S6K1 has been shown to decrease its stability and lead to an inability of insulin or IGF1 to activate PI3K and Akt (29, 69). Although the mechanism is unknown, platelet-derived growth factor receptor β (PDGF-Rβ) has been found to be downregulated in TSC1- and TSC2-deficient murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), contributing to a reduction of PI3K signaling (80). Interestingly, inhibition of Akt phosphorylation by mTORC1 has also been observed in the presence of growth factors other than IGF-1, insulin, or PDGF, suggesting that there are other mechanisms by which mTORC1 activation restricts Akt activity in cells (reviewed in references 6 and 31). Recent evidence demonstrates that rapamycin treatment causes a significant increase in Rictor electrophoretic mobility (2, 62), suggesting that phosphorylation of the mTORC2 subunit Rictor may be regulated by mTORC1 or downstream protein kinases.Herein, we demonstrate that Rictor is phosphorylated by S6K1 in response to mTORC1 activation. We demonstrate that Thr1135 is directly phosphorylated by S6K1 and found that a Rictor mutant lacking this phosphorylation site increases Akt phosphorylation induced by growth factor stimulation. Cells expressing the Rictor T1135A mutant were found to have increased Akt signaling to its substrates compared to Rictor wild-type- and T1135D mutant-expressing cells. Together, our results suggest that Rictor integrates mTORC1 signaling via its phosphorylation by S6K1, resulting in the inhibition of mTORC2 and Akt signaling.     

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad6 Postreplication Repair and Siz1/Srs2 Homologous Recombination-Inhibiting Pathways Process DNA Damage That Arises in asf1 Mutants

The Asf1 and Rad6 pathways have been implicated in a number of common processes such as suppression of gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs), DNA repair, modification of chromatin, and proper checkpoint functions. We examined the relationship between Asf1 and different gene products implicated in postreplication repair (PRR) pathways in the suppression of GCRs, checkpoint function, sensitivity to hydroxyurea (HU) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), and ubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). We found that defects in Rad6 PRR pathway and Siz1/Srs2 homologous recombination suppression (HRS) pathway genes suppressed the increased GCR rates seen in asf1 mutants, which was independent of translesion bypass polymerases but showed an increased dependency on Dun1. Combining an asf1 deletion with different PRR mutations resulted in a synergistic increase in sensitivity to chronic HU and MMS treatment; however, these double mutants were not checkpoint defective, since they were capable of recovering from acute treatment with HU. Interestingly, we found that Asf1 and Rad6 cooperate in ubiquitination of PCNA, indicating that Rad6 and Asf1 function in parallel pathways that ubiquitinate PCNA. Our results show that ASF1 probably contributes to the maintenance of genome stability through multiple mechanisms, some of which involve the PRR and HRS pathways.DNA replication must be highly coordinated with chromatin assembly and cell division for correct propagation of genetic information and cell survival. Errors arising during DNA replication are corrected through the functions of numerous pathways including checkpoints and a diversity of DNA repair mechanisms (32, 33, 35). However, in the absence of these critical cellular responses, replication errors can lead to the accumulation of mutations and gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) as well as chromosome loss, a condition generally termed genomic instability (33). Genome instability is a hallmark of many cancers as well as other human diseases (24). There are many mechanisms by which GCRs can arise, and over the last few years numerous genes and pathways have been implicated in playing a role in the suppression of GCRs in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and in some cases in the etiology of cancer (27, 28, 33, 39-47, 51, 53, 56, 58, 60), including S. cerevisiae ASF1, which encodes the main subunit of the replication coupling assembly factor (37, 62).Asf1 is involved in the deposition of histones H3 and H4 onto newly synthesized DNA during DNA replication and repair (62), and correspondingly, asf1 mutants are sensitive to chronic treatment with DNA-damaging agents (2, 30, 62). However, asf1 mutants do not appear to be repair defective and can recover from acute treatment with at least some DNA-damaging agents (2, 8, 30, 31, 54), properties similar to those described for rad9 mutants (68). In the absence of Asf1, both the DNA damage and replication checkpoints become activated during normal cell growth, and in the absence of checkpoint execution, there is a further increase in checkpoint activation in asf1 mutants (30, 46, 54). It has been suggested that asf1 mutants are defective for checkpoint shutoff and that this might account for the increased steady-state levels of checkpoint activation seen in asf1 mutants (8); however, another study has shown that asf1 mutants are not defective for checkpoint shutoff and that in fact Asf1 and the chromatin assembly factor I (CAF-I) complex act redundantly or cooperate in checkpoint shutoff (31). Furthermore, Asf1 might be involved in proper activation of the Rad53 checkpoint protein, as Asf1 physically interacts with Rad53 and this interaction is abrogated in response to exogenous DNA damage (15, 26); however, the physiological relevance of this interaction is unclear. Asf1 is also required for K56 acetylation of histone H3 by Rtt109, and both rtt109 mutants and histone H3 variants that cannot be acetylated (38) share many of the properties of asf1 mutants, suggesting that at least some of the requirement for Asf1 in response to DNA damage is mediated through Rtt109 (11, 14, 22, 61). Subsequent studies of checkpoint activation in asf1 mutants have led to the hypothesis that replication coupling assembly factor defects result in destabilization of replication forks which are then recognized by the replication checkpoint and stabilized, suggesting that the destabilized replication forks account for both the increased GCRs and increased checkpoint activation seen in asf1 mutants (30). This hypothesis is supported by other recent studies implicating Asf1 in the processing of stalled replication forks (16, 57). This role appears to be independent of CAF-I, which can cooperate with Asf1 in chromatin assembly (63). Asf1 has also been shown to function in disassembly of chromatin, suggesting other possibilities for the mechanism of action of Asf1 at the replication fork (1, 2, 34). Thus, while Asf1 is thought to be involved in progression of the replication fork, both the mechanism of action and the factors that cooperate with Asf1 in this process remain obscure.Stalled replication forks, particularly those that stall at sites of DNA damage, can be processed by homologous recombination (HR) (6) or by a mechanism known as postreplication repair (PRR) (reviewed in reference 67). There are two PRR pathways, an error-prone pathway involving translesion synthesis (TLS) by lower-fidelity polymerases and an error-free pathway thought to involve template switching (TS) (67). In S. cerevisiae, the PRR pathways are under the control of the RAD6 epistasis group (64). The error-prone pathway depends on monoubiquitination of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) on K164 by Rad6 (an E2 ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme) by Rad18 (E3 ubiquitin ligase) (23). This results in replacement of the replicative DNA polymerase with nonessential TLS DNA polymerases, such as REV3/REV7-encoded DNA polymerase ζ (polζ) and RAD30-encoded DNA polη, which can bypass different types of replication-blocking damage (67). The error-free pathway is controlled by Rad5 (E3) and a complex consisting of Ubc13 and Mms2 (E2 and E2 variant, respectively), which add a K63-linked polyubiquitin chain to monoubiquitinated PCNA, leading to TS to the undamaged nascent sister chromatid (4, 25, 65). Furthermore, in addition to modification with ubiquitin, K164 of PCNA can also be sumoylated by Siz1, resulting in subsequent recruitment of the Srs2 helicase and inhibition of deleterious Rad51-dependent recombination events (50, 52, 55), although it is currently unclear if these are competing PCNA modifications or if both can exist on different subunits in the same PCNA trimer. A separate branch of the Rad6 pathway involving the E3 ligase Bre1 monoubiquitinates the histone H2B (29, 69) as well as Swd2 (66), which stimulates Set1-dependent methylation of K4 and Dot1-dependent methylation of K79 of histone H3 (48, 49, 66). Subsequently, K79-methylated H3 recruits Rad9 and activates the Rad53 checkpoint (19, 70). Activation of Rad53 is also bolstered by Rad6-Rad18-dependent ubiquitination of Rad17, which is part of the 9-1-1 complex that functions upstream in the checkpoint pathway (17). Finally, Rad6 complexes with the E3 Ubr1, which mediates protein degradation by the N-end rule pathway (13).Due to the role of the PRR pathways at stalled replication forks and a recent study implicating the Rad6 pathway in the suppression of GCRs (39), we examined the relationship between these ubiquitination and sumoylation pathways and the Asf1 pathway in order to gain additional insights into the function of Asf1 during DNA replication and repair. Our findings suggest that Asf1 has multiple functions that prevent replication damage or act in the cellular responses to replication damage and that these functions are modified by and interact with the PRR pathways. The TLS PRR pathway does not appear to be involved, and both a Dun1-dependent replication checkpoint and HR are important for preventing the deleterious effects of PRR and Asf1 pathway defects. We hypothesize that this newly observed cooperation between Asf1 and the PRR pathways may be required for resolving stalled replication forks, leading to suppression of GCRs and successful DNA replication.