Attenuation of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Encephalitis through MicroRNA Targeting

Vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) has long been regarded as a promising recombinant vaccine platform and oncolytic agent but has not yet been tested in humans because it causes encephalomyelitis in rodents and primates. Recent studies have shown that specific tropisms of several viruses could be eliminated by engineering microRNA target sequences into their genomes, thereby inhibiting spread in tissues expressing cognate microRNAs. We therefore sought to determine whether microRNA targets could be engineered into VSV to ameliorate its neuropathogenicity. Using a panel of recombinant VSVs incorporating microRNA target sequences corresponding to neuron-specific or control microRNAs (in forward and reverse orientations), we tested viral replication kinetics in cell lines treated with microRNA mimics, neurotoxicity after direct intracerebral inoculation in mice, and antitumor efficacy. Compared to picornaviruses and adenoviruses, the engineered VSVs were relatively resistant to microRNA-mediated inhibition, but neurotoxicity could nevertheless be ameliorated significantly using this approach, without compromise to antitumor efficacy. Neurotoxicity was most profoundly reduced in a virus carrying four tandem copies of a neuronal mir125 target sequence inserted in the 3′-untranslated region of the viral polymerase (L) gene.Vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) is a nonsegmented, negative-strand rhabdovirus widely used as a vaccine platform as well as an anticancer therapeutic. While VSV is predominantly a pathogen of livestock (34), it has a very broad species tropism. The cellular tropism of VSV is determined predominantly at postentry steps, since the G glycoprotein of the virus mediates entry into most tissues in nearly all animal species (10).Though viral entry can take place in nearly all cell types, in vivo models of VSV infection have revealed that the virus is highly sensitive to the innate immune response, limiting its pathogenesis (4). VSV is intensively responsive to type I interferon (IFN), as the double-stranded RNA (dsRNA)-dependent PKR (2), the downstream effector of pattern recognition receptors MyD88 (32), and other molecules mediate shutdown of viral translation and allow the adaptive immune response to clear the virus. The vulnerability of the virus to the type I IFN response, typically defective in many cancers, has been exploited to generate tumor-selective replication (49), such that the virus is now poised to enter phase I trials. However, the virus remains potently neurotoxic, causing lethal encephalitis not only in rodent models (7, 22, 53) but also in nonhuman primates (25).VSV very often infiltrates the central nervous system (CNS) through infection of the olfactory nerves (41). When administered intranasally, the virus replicates rapidly in the nasal epithelium and is transmitted to olfactory neurons, from which it then moves retrograde axonally to the brain and replicates robustly, causing neuropathogenesis. While intranasal inoculation does cause neuropathy in mice, neurotoxicity following viral administration also occurs when the virus is delivered intravascularly (47), intraperitoneally (42), and (not surprisingly) intracranially (13). Previously, other groups have modified the VSV genome to be more sensitive to cellular IFNs (49) and have actually encoded IFN in the virus (36). However, the former can result in attenuation of the virus, such that it has reduced anticancer potential, while the latter still results in lethal encephalitis (unpublished results). In order to mitigate the effects of VSV infection on the brain without perturbing the potent oncolytic activity of the virus, we utilized a microRNA (miRNA) targeting paradigm, whereby viral replication is restricted in the brain without altering the tropism of the virus for other tissues.To redirect the tissue tropism of anticancer therapeutics, we (26) and others (11, 14, 55) have previously exploited the tissue-specific expression of cellular miRNAs. miRNAs are ∼22-nucleotide (nt) regulatory RNAs that regulate a diverse and expansive array of cellular activities. Through recognition of sequence-complementary target elements, miRNAs can either translationally suppress or catalytically degrade both cellular (6) and viral (50) RNAs. We have determined that cellular miRNAs can potentially regulate numerous steps of a virus life cycle and that this regulation of the virus by endogenous miRNAs can then abrogate toxicities of replication-competent viruses (27; E. J. Kelly et al., unpublished data).miRNAs are known to be highly upregulated in many different tissues, including (but not limited to) muscle (40), lung (44), liver (15, 44), spleen (44, 46), and kidney (51). In addition, the brain has a number of upregulated miRNAs, with each different subtype of cell having a unique miRNA profile. miR-125 is highly upregulated in all cells in the brain (neurons, astrocytes, and glia cells), while miR-124 is found predominantly in neuronal cells (48). Glial cells and glioblastomas are thought to have decreased expression of miR-128 compared to neurons (17), while miR-134 is particularly abundant in dendrites of neurons in the hippocampus (43). In addition to these miRNAs, the tumor suppressor miRNA let-7 and miRs 9, 26, and 29 (51) are also found to be enriched in the brain, with expression varying not only between different cell types and regions of the brain but also temporally (48).MicroRNAs have previously been exploited to modulate the tissue tropism of nonreplicating lentiviral vectors (8, 9), as well as curbing known toxicities of replication-competent picornaviruses (5, 26), adenoviruses (11), herpes simplex virus 1 (33), and influenza A virus (39). In addition, a recombinant VSV encoding a tumor suppressor target was found to be responsive to sequence-complementary miRNAs in vitro, possibly by affecting expression of the matrix (M) protein (14), and evidence from Dicer-deficient mice suggests that endogenously expressed microRNA targets within the P and L genes of VSV could restrict enhanced pathogenicity of the virus (37). However, in vivo protection from neuropathogenesis by this means has not been demonstrated for VSV.Here we evaluate the efficiencies of different brain-specific miRNAs for shutting down gene expression and extensively characterize the ability of miRNA targeting to attenuate the neurotoxicity of vesicular stomatitis virus in vivo. We constructed and evaluated recombinant VSVs with miRNA target (miRT) insertions at different regions of the viral genome, with special focus upon those affecting viral L expression. In addition, we looked at the regulatory efficiency of different brain-specific miRNAs and the impact of miRT orientation on VSV replication and determined the impact of the virus on oncolytic activity in vivo.     

Mumps Virus Matrix,Fusion, and Nucleocapsid Proteins Cooperate for Efficient Production of Virus-Like Particles

Paramyxovirus particles, like other enveloped virus particles, are formed by budding from membranes of infected cells. To define mumps virus (MuV) proteins important for this process, viral proteins were expressed either singly or in combination in mammalian cells to produce virus-like particles (VLPs). Only the MuV matrix (M) protein when expressed by itself was capable of inducing particle release, but the quantity of these M-alone particles was very small. Efficient production of mumps VLPs occurred only when the M protein was coexpressed together with other viral proteins, with maximum production achieved upon coexpression of the viral M, nucleocapsid (NP), and fusion (F) proteins together. Electron microscopy analysis confirmed that VLPs were morphologically similar to MuV virions. The two MuV glycoproteins were not equal contributors to particle formation. The F protein was a major contributor to VLP production, while the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase protein made a smaller contribution. Evidence for the involvement of class E protein machinery in VLP budding was obtained, with mumps VLP production inhibited upon expression of dominant-negative versions of the class E proteins Vps4A and Chmp4b. Disruption of the sequence 24-FPVI-27 within the MuV M protein led to poor VLP production, consistent with findings of earlier studies of a related sequence, FPIV, important for the budding of parainfluenza virus 5. Together, these results demonstrate that different MuV structural proteins cooperate together for efficient particle production and that particle budding likely involves host class E protein machinery.Mumps virus (MuV) is a paramyxovirus from the Rubulavirus genus. Prior to mass vaccination, mumps was a very common childhood illness, with characteristic symptoms including fever, fatigue, and inflammation of the salivary glands. Less frequently, MuV infection results in serious complications including aseptic meningitis and encephalitis (22). Significant outbreaks of mumps have occurred recently in the United Kingdom (6), Canada (40), and the United States (7, 14), highlighting the continued relevance of this disease even in countries where vaccination is widespread. Like other paramyxoviruses, MuV possesses a genome that consists of single-stranded negative-sense RNA, encapsidated by a nucleocapsid (NP) protein and associated with an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex composed of large protein and phosphoprotein subunits. This core is linked to the virion membrane by matrix (M) protein. The outer surface of the virion is covered with glycoprotein spikes consisting of the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) protein, which binds sialic acid to allow virion attachment to cells, and fusion (F) protein, which induces viral and cellular membranes to fuse together during virus entry. Additional components of MuV include the small hydrophobic protein, which prevents infected cells from undergoing apoptosis (67), and V protein, which prevents induction of interferon-induced antiviral responses (29, 30, 62). The late steps of the MuV life cycle that allow for assembly and budding of MuV virions remain for the most part unexplored.Enveloped virus particles are formed by budding from cellular membranes at specific locations at which viral proteins, and often host factors, have assembled together. For the negative-strand RNA viruses, coordination among the different viral components during virus assembly appears to be directed by the viral matrix proteins, which have the potential to interact with the cytoplasmic tails of the viral glycoproteins and with viral ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) in the cytoplasms of infected cells. M proteins likely assemble as layers beneath the plasma membranes of infected cells and induce other viral components to gather at these locations, from which virus budding occurs (reviewed in references 49 and 57).For many viruses, it has been possible to achieve assembly and budding of particles from cells that have been transfected to produce one or more viral proteins in the absence of virus infection. These particles often resemble virions morphologically and have been termed virus-like particles (VLPs). VLP production provides a useful means for determining the individual roles of different virus proteins in particle formation, and in some cases the VLPs themselves have shown promise as vaccines (45). For most negative-strand RNA viruses, VLP formation is critically dependent on the presence of the viral matrix proteins (49). Indeed, in the cases of Newcastle disease virus (NDV) (37) and Nipah virus (11, 38), M protein expression is sufficient for highly efficient VLP production, with no apparent need for assistance from any of the other viral structural components, such as the viral glycoproteins or NP proteins. In the case of NDV, incorporation of glycoproteins and NP proteins into the budding VLPs requires specific interactions involving the M protein, but these interactions do not appear to facilitate the budding process itself (37).Although expression of viral matrix protein is sufficient for robust VLP production in the above cases, it has long been thought that additional viral components are also important for efficient budding of many negative-strand RNA viruses. For example, an important role for viral glycoproteins in virus assembly has been established based on studies with recombinant viruses that contain glycoproteins lacking their cytoplasmic tails (4, 17, 26, 34, 35, 48, 52, 66) and analyses of assembly-defective subacute sclerosing panencephalitis measles virus strains (5, 47). In fact, recent evidence suggests that for influenza virus it is the viral glycoproteins (and not viral matrix protein) that are the main drivers of virus budding (9). For other negative-strand RNA viruses, expression of viral glycoproteins together with matrix proteins in some cases significantly enhances the efficiency of VLP release. Ebola VLPs (31), Sendai VLPs (55, 56), and parainfluenza virus 5 (PIV5)-like particles (51) are all produced more efficiently in the presence of viral glycoprotein expression. Ebola virus glycoprotein in some cell types functions during virus release to inhibit the action of tetherin, a cellular protein which functions to prevent the release of enveloped virus particles from infected cells (28). In addition to the viral glycoproteins, other viral components can also enhance the production of VLPs. Production of Ebola VLPs and PIV5-like particles can be further enhanced through expression of the corresponding NP proteins (31, 51), and Sendai VLP production is enhanced through expression of Sendai virus C protein (55). Hence, for these viruses, multiple proteins cooperate with one another to achieve maximum VLP production. The extent to which particle formation actually requires this cooperation differs, however. In the case of PIV5, it is absolutely essential; expression of the M protein alone does not lead to VLP production (51). On the other hand, cooperation among viral proteins is beneficial but not strictly required for the production of Sendai or Ebola VLPs, since expression of the matrix proteins of these viruses is sufficient for VLP production (20, 55, 56, 61).The late steps of negative-strand RNA virus budding may occur in a way that is analogous to the budding of retroviruses, which employ protein-protein interaction domains called late domains to manipulate host machinery and allow release of virus particles (reviewed in references 1 and 3). Cellular factors recruited by late domains in many cases are class E proteins that are part of the vacuolar protein sorting (Vps) pathway of the cell. Indeed, disruption of the Vps pathway through expression of dominant-negative (DN) versions of the Vps4 ATPase protein blocks the budding of many retroviruses (reviewed in reference 1), as well as the budding of Ebola virus (32), Lassa fever virus (63), and PIV5 (50). However, other negative-strand RNA viruses, such as influenza virus, bud particles in ways that are not substantially affected by disruption of the cellular Vps pathway (reviewed in reference 8).Here, experiments are described which define MuV proteins important for the assembly and budding of VLPs. Using proteins derived from the 88-1961 wild-type (wt) strain of MuV, optimal production of mumps VLPs is shown to occur upon coexpression of the MuV M, F, and NP proteins together in transiently transfected mammalian cells. Evidence is also provided that supports a role for cellular class E protein machinery in the budding of mumps VLPs.     

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.