Cleavage and degradation of EDEM1 promotes coxsackievirus B3 replication via ATF6a‐mediated unfolded protein response signalling

Our previous study of coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3)‐induced unfolded protein responses (UPR) found that overexpression of ATF6a enhances CVB3 VP1 capsid protein production and increases viral particle formation. These findings implicate that ATF6a signalling benefits CVB3 replication. However, the mechanism by which ATF6a signalling is transduced to promote virus replication is unclear. In this study, using a Tet‐On inducible ATF6a HeLa cell line, we found that ATF6a signalling downregulated the protein expression of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) degradation‐enhancing α‐mannosidase‐like protein 1 (EDEM1), resulting in accumulation of CVB3 VP1 protein; in contrast, expression of a dominant negative ATF6a had the opposite effect. Furthermore, we found that EDEM1 was cleaved by both CVB3 protease 3C and virus‐activated caspase and subsequently degraded via the ubiquitin‐proteasome pathway. However, overexpression of EDEM1 caused VP1 degradation, likely via a glycosylation‐independent and ubiquitin‐lysosome pathway. Finally, we demonstrated that CRISPR/Cas9‐mediated knockout of EDEM1 increased VP1 accumulation and thus CVB3 replication. This is the first study to report the ER protein quality control of non‐enveloped RNA virus and reveals a novel mechanism by which CVB3 evades host ER quality control pathways through cleavage and degradation of the UPR target gene EDEM1, to ultimately benefit its own replication.     

Endoplasmic reticulum stress is induced and modulated by enterovirus 71

Picornavirus infection alters the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane but it is unclear whether this induces ER stress. Infection of rhabdomyosarcoma cells with enterovirus 71 (EV71), a picornavirus, caused overexpression of the ER‐resident chaperone proteins, BiP and calreticulin, and phosphorylation of eIF2α, but infection with UV‐inactivated virus did not, indicating that ER stress was induced by viral replication and not by viral attachment or entry. Silencing (si)RNA knockdown demonstrated that phosphorylation of eIF2α was dependent on PKR: eIF2α phosphorylation was reduced by siPKR but not by siPERK. We provided evidence showing that PERK is upstream of PKR and is thus able to negatively regulate the PKR‐eIF2α pathway. Pulse‐chase experiments revealed that EV71 infection inhibited translation and activation of ATF6. Expression of BiP at the protein level was activated by a virus‐dependent, ATF6‐independent mechanism. EV71 upregulated XBP1 mRNA level, but neither IRE1‐mediated XBP1 splicing nor its active spliced protein was detected, and its downstream gene, EDEM, was not activated. Epigenetic BiP overexpression alleviated EV71‐induced ER stress and reduced viral protein expression and replication. Our results suggest that EV71 infection induces ER stress but modifies the outcome to assist viral replication.     

未折叠蛋白响应的激活机制

未折叠蛋白在内质网（endoplasmic reticulum,ER）腔中累积造成ER应激，此时细胞启动未折叠蛋白响应（unfolded protein response,UPR）以恢复蛋白质稳态。目前已知有三种UPR感受器，即IRE1、PERK和ATF6，它们均为ER跨膜蛋白，在ER应激时被激活并启动下游UPR信号通路。虽然UPR感受器最早是在研究细胞如何应对ER应激时发现的，但它们如何感知ER应激至今未得到完满的回答。随着研究的深入，人们发现UPR的功能不仅限于维持蛋白质稳态，而UPR感受器也不是只对未折叠蛋白累积作出响应。本文对UPR的发现及其经典通路作一介绍，着重阐述目前已知的UPR感受器的激活机制，并就UPR和ER应激关系以及该领域存在的问题进行讨论。     

Hyperoxia augments ER-stress-induced cell death independent of BiP loss

Cytotoxic reactive oxygen species are constantly formed as a by-product of aerobic respiration and are thought to contribute to aging and disease. Cells respond to oxidative stress by activating various pathways, whose balance is important for adaptation or induction of cell death. Our lab recently reported that BiP (GRP78), a proposed negative regulator of the unfolded protein response (UPR), declines during hyperoxia, a model of chronic oxidative stress. Here, we investigate whether exposure to hyperoxia, and consequent loss of BiP, activates the UPR or sensitizes cells to ER stress. Evidence is provided that hyperoxia does not activate the three ER stress receptors IRE1, PERK, and ATF6. Although hyperoxia alone did not activate the UPR, it sensitized cells to tunicamycin-induced cell death. Conversely, overexpression of BiP did not block hyperoxia-induced ROS production or increased sensitivity to tunicamycin. These findings demonstrate that hyperoxia and loss of BiP alone are insufficient to activate the UPR. However, hyperoxia can sensitize cells to toxicity from unfolded proteins, implying that chronic ROS, such as that seen throughout aging, could augment the UPR and, moreover, suggesting that the therapeutic use of hyperoxia may be detrimental for lung diseases associated with ER stress.     

Phenylbutyric acid induces the cellular senescence through an Akt/p21(WAF1) signaling pathway

It has been well known that three sentinel proteins - PERK, ATF6 and IRE1 - initiate the unfolded protein response (UPR) in the presence of misfolded or unfolded proteins in the ER. Recent studies have demonstrated that upregulation of UPR in cancer cells is required to survive and proliferate. Here, we showed that long exposure to 4-phenylbutyric acid (PBA), a chemical chaperone that can reduce retention of unfolded and misfolded proteins in ER, induced cellular senescence in cancer cells such as MCF7 and HT1080. In addition, we found that treatment with PBA activates Akt, which results in p21(WAF1) induction. Interestingly, the depletion of PERK but not ATF6 and IRE1 also induces cellular senescence, which was rescued by additional depletion of Akt. This suggests that Akt pathway is downstream of PERK in PBA induced cellular senescence. Taken together, these results show that PBA induces cellular senescence via activation of the Akt/p21(WAF1) pathway by PERK inhibition.     

Binding of human BiP to the ER stress transducers IRE1 and PERK requires ATP

ER stress is activated in a number of important diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and neurodegeneration, but the molecular interactions governing the response are still being elucidated. In the absence of stress, protein complexes exist between the ER-resident chaperone BiP and three transmembrane signalling molecules which are responsible for signal transmission. Previous results suggested that cofactors might participate in these interactions, but the molecular details are not well understood. We coexpressed BiP and the lumenal domains of each of the three ER stress transducers and copurified the complexes in the presence of ATP and ADP in order to better understand how the complex is formed. ATP, but not ADP, was required to isolate the BiP-IRE1 and the BiP-PERK complexes, but the BiP-ATF6 complex was purified in all conditions tested. Based on the results, we hypothesize that in contrast to its mode of binding ATF6 and unfolded proteins, BiP binds to IRE1 and PERK in a different manner.