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.     

Cell-Cell Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Overcomes Tetherin/BST-2-Mediated Restriction in T cells

Direct cell-to-cell spread of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) between T cells at the virological synapse (VS) is an efficient mechanism of viral dissemination. Tetherin (BST-2/CD317) is an interferon-induced, antiretroviral restriction factor that inhibits nascent cell-free particle release. The HIV-1 Vpu protein antagonizes tetherin activity; however, whether tetherin also restricts cell-cell spread is unclear. We performed quantitative cell-to-cell transfer analysis of wild-type (WT) or Vpu-defective HIV-1 in Jurkat and primary CD4⁺ T cells, both of which express endogenous levels of tetherin. We found that Vpu-defective HIV-1 appeared to disseminate more efficiently by cell-to-cell contact between Jurkat cells under conditions where tetherin restricted cell-free virion release. In T cells infected with Vpu-defective HIV-1, tetherin was enriched at the VS, and VS formation was increased compared to the WT, correlating with an accumulation of virus envelope proteins on the cell surface. Increasing tetherin expression with type I interferon had only minor effects on cell-to-cell transmission. Furthermore, small interfering RNA (siRNA)-mediated depletion of tetherin decreased VS formation and cell-to-cell transmission of both Vpu-defective and WT HIV-1. Taken together, these data demonstrate that tetherin does not restrict VS-mediated T cell-to-T cell transfer of Vpu-defective HIV-1 and suggest that under some circumstances tetherin might promote cell-to-cell transfer, either by mediating the accumulation of virions on the cell surface or by regulating integrity of the VS. If so, inhibition of tetherin activity by Vpu may balance requirements for efficient cell-free virion production and cell-to-cell transfer of HIV-1 in the face of antiviral immune responses.Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 can disseminate between and within hosts by cell-free infection or by direct cell-cell spread. Cell-cell spread of HIV-1 between CD4⁺ T cells is an efficient means of viral dissemination (65) and has been estimated to be several orders of magnitude more rapid than cell-free virus infection (6, 8, 41, 64, 74). Cell-cell transmission of HIV-1 takes place at the virological synapse (VS), a multimolecular structure that forms at the interface between an HIV-1-infected T cell and an uninfected target T cell during intercellular contact (27). Related structures that facilitate cell-cell spread of HIV-1 between dendritic cells and T cells (42) and between macrophages and T cells (16, 17) and for cell-cell spread of the related retrovirus human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1) (24) have also been described. Moreover, more long-range cell-cell transfer can occur via cellular projections, including filopodia (71) and membrane nanotubes (75). The VS is initiated by binding of the HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein (Env), which is expressed on the surfaces of infected T cells, to HIV-1 entry receptors (CD4 and either CXCR4 or CCR5) present on the target cell membrane (6, 22, 27, 41, 61, 73). Interactions between LFA-1 and ICAM-1 and ICAM-3 further stabilize the conjugate interface and, together with Env receptor binding, help trigger the recruitment of viral proteins, CD4/coreceptor, and integrins to the contact site (27, 28, 61). The enrichment of viral and cellular proteins at the VS is an active process, dependent on cytoskeletal remodeling, and in the infected T cell both the actin and tubulin network regulate polarization of HIV-1 proteins at the cell-cell interface, thus directing HIV-1 assembly and egress toward the engaged target cell (27, 29). Virus is transferred by budding into the synaptic cleft, and virions subsequently attach to the target cell membrane to mediate entry, either by fusion at the plasma membrane or possibly following endocytic uptake (2, 22). In this way, the VS promotes more rapid infection kinetics and may enhance HIV-1 pathogenesis in vivo.Cells have evolved a number of barriers to resist invading microorganisms. One mechanism that appears to be particularly important in counteracting HIV-1 infection is a group of interferon-inducible, innate restriction factors that includes TRIM5α, APOBEC3G, and tetherin (38, 49, 69, 79). Tetherin (BST-2/CD317) is a host protein expressed by many cell types, including CD4⁺ T cells, that acts at a late stage of the HIV-1 life cycle to trap (or “tether”) mature virions at the plasma membranes of virus-producing cells, thereby inhibiting cell-free virus release (49, 56, 81). This antiviral activity of tetherin is not restricted to HIV-1, and tetherin can also inhibit the release of other enveloped viruses from infected cells (31, 40, 54, 62). What the cellular function of tetherin is besides its antiviral activity is unclear, but because expression is upregulated following alpha/beta interferon (IFN-α/β) treatment (1) and tetherin can restrict a range of enveloped viruses, tetherin has been postulated to be a broad-acting mediator of the innate immune defense against enveloped viruses.To circumvent restriction of particle release, HIV-1 encodes the 16-kDa accessory protein Vpu, which antagonizes tetherin and restores normal virus budding (47, 78). The molecular mechanisms by which Vpu does this are not entirely clear, but evidence suggests that Vpu may exert its antagonistic function by downregulating tetherin from the cell surface, trapping it in the trans-Golgi network (10) and targeting it for degradation by the proteasome (12, 39, 81) or lysosome (9, 25, 44); however, degradation of tetherin may be dispensable for Vpu activity (13), and in HIV-1-infected T cells, surface downregulation of tetherin has been reported to be minor (45), suggesting that global removal of tetherin from the plasma membrane may not be necessary to antagonize its function.Tetherin-mediated restriction of HIV-1 and antagonism by Vpu have been the focus of much research, and inhibition of cell-free virus infection has been well documented (33, 47-49, 77, 81, 82). In contrast, less studied is the impact of tetherin on direct cell-cell dissemination. For example, it is not clear if tetherin-mediated restriction inhibits T cell-T cell spread as efficiently as cell-free release or whether tetherin affects VS formation. To address these questions, we analyzed Vpu⁺ and Vpu⁻ viruses for their ability to spread directly between Jurkat T cells and primary CD4⁺ T cells in the presence or absence of endogenous tetherin. Our data suggest that tetherin does not restrict HIV-1 in the context of cell-to-cell transmission of virus between T cells expressing endogenous tetherin. Interestingly, we also that observed that Vpu-defective virus may disseminate more efficiently by cell-cell spread at the VS. We postulate that cell-cell spread may favor viral pathogenesis by allowing HIV-1 to disseminate in the presence of tetherin during an interferon-producing innate response.     

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.     

Pseudotyping Incompatibility between HIV-1 and Gibbon Ape Leukemia Virus Env Is Modulated by Vpu

The Env protein from gibbon ape leukemia virus (GaLV) has been shown to be incompatible with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in the production of infectious pseudotyped particles. This incompatibility has been mapped to the C-terminal cytoplasmic tail of GaLV Env. Surprisingly, we found that the HIV-1 accessory protein Vpu modulates this incompatibility. The infectivity of HIV-1 pseudotyped with murine leukemia virus (MLV) Env was not affected by Vpu. However, the infectivity of HIV-1 pseudotyped with an MLV Env with the cytoplasmic tail from GaLV Env (MLV/GaLV Env) was restricted 50- to 100-fold by Vpu. A Vpu mutant containing a scrambled membrane-spanning domain, Vpu_RD, was still able to restrict MLV/GaLV Env, but mutation of the serine residues at positions 52 and 56 completely alleviated the restriction. Loss of infectivity appeared to be caused by reduced MLV/GaLV Env incorporation into viral particles. The mechanism of this downmodulation appears to be distinct from Vpu-mediated CD4 downmodulation because Vpu-expressing cells that failed to produce infectious HIV-1 particles nonetheless continued to display robust surface MLV/GaLV Env expression. In addition, if MLV and HIV-1 were simultaneously introduced into the same cells, only the HIV-1 particle infectivity was restricted by Vpu. Collectively, these data suggest that Vpu modulates the cellular distribution of MLV/GaLV Env, preventing its recruitment to HIV-1 budding sites.The gammaretrovirus gibbon ape leukemia virus (GaLV) has been widely used for gene therapy because of its wide host cell tropism and nonpathogenicity (1, 6, 10, 12, 13, 20). The host cell receptor for GaLV Env has been cloned and identified as a sodium-dependent phosphate transporter protein (25, 26). Like other retroviruses, GaLV encodes a single transmembrane surface glycoprotein (GaLV Env), which is cleaved into surface (SU) and transmembrane (TM) subunits (Fig. ​(Fig.1).1). The TM domain of GaLV Env contains a short 30-amino-acid C-terminal cytoplasmic tail. Although GaLV Env functions well when coupled (pseudotyped) with murine leukemia virus (MLV)-based retroviral vectors, it has been shown to be completely incompatible with HIV-1 (4, 35). When GaLV Env is expressed with HIV-1, essentially no infectious HIV-1 particles are produced (4, 35). The mechanism for this infectivity downmodulation is unknown, but the component of GaLV Env responsible for the restriction has been mapped to the cytoplasmic tail. Replacing the cytoplasmic tail of GaLV Env with the equivalent sequence from MLV Env ameliorates the restriction. Likewise, replacing the cytoplasmic tail of MLV Env with that from GaLV Env confers the restriction (4).Open in a separate windowFIG. 1.Schematic of MLV Env protein. Sequences are the C-terminal cytoplasmic tails of MLV Env, GaLV Env, and human CD4. GaLV sequences in boldface are residues that have been shown to modulate the HIV-1 incompatibility (4). Underlined sequences in CD4 are amino acids required for Vpu-mediated downmodulation (2, 15). Arrows denote the location of MLV/GaLV tail substitution. SU, surface domain; TM, transmembrane domain.Vpu is an 81-amino-acid HIV-1 accessory protein produced from the same mRNA as the HIV-1 Env gene. The N terminus of Vpu contains a membrane-spanning domain, followed by a 50-amino-acid cytoplasmic domain. Vpu is unique to HIV-1 and a few closely related SIV strains. The best-characterized roles for Vpu in the HIV-1 life cycle are modulation of host proteins CD4 and tetherin (also known as BST-2, CD317, and HM1.24) (24, 38, 39). Vpu promotes the degradation of CD4 in the endoplasmic reticulum through a proteasome-dependent mechanism (29). The cytoplasmic tail of Vpu physically interacts with the cytoplasmic tail of CD4 and recruits the human β-transducing repeat-containing protein (β-TrCP) and E3 ubiquitin ligase components to polyubiquitinate and ultimately trigger the degradation of CD4 (18). Two serine residues at positions 52 and 56 of Vpu are phosphorylated by casein kinase-2 and are required for CD4 degradation (31, 32). The membrane-spanning domain of Vpu is not specifically required for CD4 degradation. A mutant protein containing a scrambled membrane-spanning sequence, Vpu_RD, is still able to trigger the degradation of CD4 (32). The region of CD4 that is targeted by Vpu is approximately 17 to 13 amino acids from the C terminus in the cytoplasmic tail (Fig. ​(Fig.1)1) (2, 15).In addition to degrading CD4, Vpu has also long been known to result in enhanced viral release (EVR) in certain cell lines (14, 36). Recently, the type I interferon-induced host protein tetherin was identified as being responsible for this Vpu-modulated restriction (24, 38). In the absence of Vpu, tetherin causes particles to remain tethered (hence the name) to the host cell postfission. Although Vpu counteracts the function of tetherin, the exact mechanism has not been fully elucidated. However, the mechanism for tetherin antagonism appears to be distinct from that for modulating CD4. Mutation of the serines 52 and 56 of Vpu abolish CD4 degradation, but only reduce EVR activity (5, 17, 21, 32). Some EVR activity remains even when much of the Vpu cytoplasmic tail is deleted (30). In addition, many mutations in the membrane-spanning domain, such as Vpu_RD, do not affect CD4 degradation and yet completely abolish EVR activity (27, 30, 37). The critical residues in tetherin for recognition by Vpu appear to be in the membrane-spanning domain and not the cytoplasmic tail (9, 19, 28). Although β-TrCP is required for complete EVR activity, there is no consensus whether the degradation of tetherin is proteasome or lysosome mediated (5, 7, 21) or whether degradation is required at all. In some cases there can be some EVR activity in the absence of tetherin degradation (17, 22).We demonstrate here that Vpu is responsible for the incompatibility between HIV-1 and GaLV Env. Glycoproteins containing the cytoplasmic tail from GaLV Env are prevented from being incorporated into HIV-1 particles by Vpu, effectively reducing infectious particle production by 50- to 100-fold. The serines at positions 52 and 56 are required for this restriction, but the membrane-spanning domain is not. Although the mechanism for this restriction appears similar to CD4 degradation, there are apparent differences. Vpu does not prevent surface expression, and it does not prevent its incorporation into MLV particles. Therefore, the mechanism of restriction appears to involve a system that does not rely directly on global protein degradation.     

Characterization of Lassa Virus Glycoprotein Oligomerization and Influence of Cholesterol on Virus Replication

Mature glycoprotein spikes are inserted in the Lassa virus envelope and consist of the distal subunit GP-1, the transmembrane-spanning subunit GP-2, and the signal peptide, which originate from the precursor glycoprotein pre-GP-C by proteolytic processing. In this study, we analyzed the oligomeric structure of the viral surface glycoprotein. Chemical cross-linking studies of mature glycoprotein spikes from purified virus revealed the formation of trimers. Interestingly, sucrose density gradient analysis of cellularly expressed glycoprotein showed that in contrast to trimeric mature glycoprotein complexes, the noncleaved glycoprotein forms monomers and oligomers spanning a wide size range, indicating that maturation cleavage of GP by the cellular subtilase SKI-1/S1P is critical for formation of the correct oligomeric state. To shed light on a potential relation between cholesterol and GP trimer stability, we performed cholesterol depletion experiments. Although depletion of cholesterol had no effect on trimerization of the glycoprotein spike complex, our studies revealed that the cholesterol content of the viral envelope is important for the infectivity of Lassa virus. Analyses of the distribution of viral proteins in cholesterol-rich detergent-resistant membrane areas showed that Lassa virus buds from membrane areas other than those responsible for impaired infectivity due to cholesterol depletion of lipid rafts. Thus, derivation of the viral envelope from cholesterol-rich membrane areas is not a prerequisite for the impact of cholesterol on virus infectivity.Lassa virus (LASV) is a member of the family Arenaviridae, of which Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) is the prototype. Arenaviruses comprise more than 20 species, divided into the Old World and New World virus complexes (19). The Old World arenaviruses include the human pathogenic LASV strains, Lujo virus, which was first identified in late 2008 and is associated with an unprecedented high case fatality rate in humans, the nonhuman pathogenic Ippy, Mobala, and Mopeia viruses, and the recently described Kodoko virus (10, 30, 49). The New World virus complex contains, among others, the South American hemorrhagic fever-causing viruses Junín virus, Machupo virus, Guanarito virus, Sabiá virus, and the recently discovered Chapare virus (22).Arenaviruses contain a bisegmented single-stranded RNA genome encoding the polymerase L, matrix protein Z, nucleoprotein NP, and glycoprotein GP. The bipartite ribonucleoprotein of LASV is surrounded by a lipid envelope derived from the plasma membrane of the host cell. The matrix protein Z has been identified as a major budding factor, which lines the interior of the viral lipid membrane, in which GP spikes are inserted (61, 75). The glycoprotein is synthesized as precursor protein pre-GP-C and is cotranslationally cleaved by signal peptidase into GP-C and the signal peptide, which exhibits unusual length, stability, and topology (3, 27, 28, 33, 70, 87). Moreover, the arenaviral signal peptide functions as trans-acting maturation factor (2, 26, 33). After processing by signal peptidase, GP-C of both New World and Old World arenaviruses is cleaved by the cellular subtilase subtilisin kexin isozyme-1/site-1 protease (SKI-1/S1P) into the distal subunit GP-1 and the membrane-anchored subunit GP-2 within the secretory pathway (5, 52, 63). For LCMV, it has been shown that GP-1 subunits are linked to each other by disulfide bonds and are noncovalently connected to GP-2 subunits (14, 24, 31). GP-1 is responsible for binding to the host cell receptor, while GP-2 mediates fusion between the virus envelope and the endosomal membrane at low pH due to a bipartite fusion peptide near the amino terminus (24, 36, 44). Sequence analysis of the LCMV GP-2 ectodomain revealed two heptad repeats that most likely form amphipathic helices important for this process (34, 86).In general, viral class I fusion proteins have triplets of α-helical structures in common, which contain heptad repeats (47, 73). In contrast, class II fusion proteins are characterized by β-sheets that form dimers in the prefusion status and trimers in the postfusion status (43). The class III fusion proteins are trimers that, unlike class I fusion proteins, were not proteolytically processed N-terminally of the fusion peptide, resulting in a fusion-active membrane-anchored subunit (39, 62). Previous studies with LCMV described a tetrameric organization of the glycoprotein spikes (14), while more recent data using a bacterially expressed truncated ectodomain of the LCMV GP-2 subunit pointed toward a trimeric spike structure (31). Due to these conflicting data regarding the oligomerization status of LCMV GP, it remains unclear to which class of fusion proteins the arenaviral glycoproteins belong.The state of oligomerization and the correct conformation of viral glycoproteins are crucial for membrane fusion during virus entry. The early steps of infection have been shown for several viruses to be dependent on the cholesterol content of the participating membranes (i.e., either the virus envelope or the host cell membrane) (4, 9, 15, 20, 21, 23, 40, 42, 53, 56, 76, 78, 79). In fact, it has been shown previously that entry of both LASV and LCMV is susceptible to cholesterol depletion of the target host cell membrane using methyl-β-cyclodextrin (MβCD) treatment (64, 71). Moreover, cholesterol not only plays an important role in the early steps during entry in the viral life cycle but also is critical in the virus assembly and release process. Several viruses of various families, including influenza virus, human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), measles virus, and Ebola virus, use the ordered environment of lipid raft microdomains. Due to their high levels of glycosphingolipids and cholesterol, these domains are characterized by insolubility in nonionic detergents under cold conditions (60, 72). Recent observations have suggested that budding of the New World arenavirus Junin virus occurs from detergent-soluble membrane areas (1). Assembly and release from distinct membrane microdomains that are detergent soluble have also been described for vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) (12, 38, 68). At present, however, it is not known whether LASV requires cholesterol in its viral envelope for successful virus entry or whether specific membrane microdomains are important for LASV assembly and release.In this study, we first investigated the oligomeric state of the premature and mature LASV glycoprotein complexes. Since it has been shown for several membrane proteins that the oligomerization and conformation are dependent on cholesterol (58, 59, 76, 78), we further analyzed the dependence of the cholesterol content of the virus envelope on glycoprotein oligomerization and virus infectivity. Finally, we characterized the lipid membrane areas from which LASV is released.     

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.     

Cultivation of Fastidious Bacteria by Viability Staining and Micromanipulation in a Soil Substrate Membrane System

Soil substrate membrane systems allow for microcultivation of fastidious soil bacteria as mixed microbial communities. We isolated established microcolonies from these membranes by using fluorescence viability staining and micromanipulation. This approach facilitated the recovery of diverse, novel isolates, including the recalcitrant bacterium Leifsonia xyli, a plant pathogen that has never been isolated outside the host.The majority of bacterial species have never been recovered in the laboratory (1, 14, 19, 24). In the last decade, novel cultivation approaches have successfully been used to recover “unculturables” from a diverse range of divisions (23, 25, 29). Most strategies have targeted marine environments (4, 23, 25, 32), but soil offers the potential for the investigation of vast numbers of undescribed species (20, 29). Rapid advances have been made toward culturing soil bacteria by reformulating and diluting traditional media, extending incubation times, and using alternative gelling agents (8, 21, 29).The soil substrate membrane system (SSMS) is a diffusion chamber approach that uses extracts from the soil of interest as the growth substrate, thereby mimicking the environment under investigation (12). The SSMS enriches for slow-growing oligophiles, a proportion of which are subsequently capable of growing on complex media (23, 25, 27, 30, 32). However, the SSMS results in mixed microbial communities, with the consequent difficulty in isolation of individual microcolonies for further characterization (10).Micromanipulation has been widely used for the isolation of specific cell morphotypes for downstream applications in molecular diagnostics or proteomics (5, 15). This simple technology offers the opportunity to select established microcolonies of a specific morphotype from the SSMS when combined with fluorescence visualization (3, 11). Here, we have combined the SSMS, fluorescence viability staining, and advanced micromanipulation for targeted isolation of viable, microcolony-forming soil bacteria.     

Preinfection Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Specific Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes Failed To Prevent HIV Type 1 Infection from Strains Genetically Unrelated to Viruses in Long-Term Exposed Partners

Understanding the mechanisms underlying potential altered susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in highly exposed seronegative (ES) individuals and the later clinical consequences of breakthrough infection can provide insight into strategies to control HIV-1 with an effective vaccine. From our Seattle ES cohort, we identified one individual (LSC63) who seroconverted after over 2 years of repeated unprotected sexual contact with his HIV-1-infected partner (P63) and other sexual partners of unknown HIV-1 serostatus. The HIV-1 variants infecting LSC63 were genetically unrelated to those sequenced from P63. This may not be surprising, since viral load measurements in P63 were repeatedly below 50 copies/ml, making him an unlikely transmitter. However, broad HIV-1-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) responses were detected in LSC63 before seroconversion. Compared to those detected after seroconversion, these responses were of lower magnitude and half of them targeted different regions of the viral proteome. Strong HLA-B27-restricted CTLs, which have been associated with disease control, were detected in LSC63 after but not before seroconversion. Furthermore, for the majority of the protein-coding regions of the HIV-1 variants in LSC63 (except gp41, nef, and the 3′ half of pol), the genetic distances between the infecting viruses and the viruses to which he was exposed through P63 (termed the exposed virus) were comparable to the distances between random subtype B HIV-1 sequences and the exposed viruses. These results suggest that broad preinfection immune responses were not able to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection in LSC63, even though the infecting viruses were not particularly distant from the viruses that may have elicited these responses.Understanding the mechanisms of altered susceptibility or control of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in highly exposed seronegative (ES) persons may provide invaluable information aiding the design of HIV-1 vaccines and therapy (9, 14, 15, 33, 45, 57, 58). In a cohort of female commercial sex workers in Nairobi, Kenya, a small proportion of individuals remained seronegative for over 3 years despite the continued practice of unprotected sex (12, 28, 55, 56). Similarly, resistance to HIV-1 infection has been reported in homosexual men who frequently practiced unprotected sex with infected partners (1, 15, 17, 21, 61). Multiple factors have been associated with the resistance to HIV-1 infection in ES individuals (32), including host genetic factors (8, 16, 20, 37-39, 44, 46, 47, 49, 59, 63), such as certain HLA class I and II alleles (41), as well as cellular (1, 15, 26, 55, 56), humoral (25, 29), and innate immune responses (22, 35).Seroconversion in previously HIV-resistant Nairobi female commercial sex workers, despite preexisting HIV-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) responses, has been reported (27). Similarly, 13 of 125 ES enrollees in our Seattle ES cohort (1, 15, 17) have become late seroconverters (H. Zhu, T. Andrus, Y. Liu, and T. Zhu, unpublished observations). Here, we analyze the virology, genetics, and immune responses of HIV-1 infection in one of the later seroconverting subjects, LSC63, who had developed broad CTL responses before seroconversion.