Chemokine Coreceptor Usage by Diverse Primary Isolates of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1

We tested chemokine receptor subset usage by diverse, well-characterized primary viruses isolated from peripheral blood by monitoring viral replication with CCR1, CCR2b, CCR3, CCR5, and CXCR4 U87MG.CD4 transformed cell lines and STRL33/BONZO/TYMSTR and GPR15/BOB HOS.CD4 transformed cell lines. Primary viruses were isolated from 79 men with confirmed human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection from the Chicago component of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study at interval time points. Thirty-five additional well-characterized primary viruses representing HIV-1 group M subtypes A, B, C, D, and E and group O and three primary simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) isolates were also used for these studies. The restricted use of the CCR5 chemokine receptor for viral entry was associated with infection by a virus having a non-syncytium-inducing phenotype and correlated with a reduced rate of disease progression and a prolonged disease-free interval. Conversely, broadening chemokine receptor usage from CCR5 to both CCR5 and CXCR4 was associated with infection by a virus having a syncytium-inducing phenotype and correlated with a faster rate of CD4 T-cell decline and progression of disease. We also observed a greater tendency for infection with a virus having a syncytium-inducing phenotype in men heterozygous for the defective CCR5 Δ32 allele (25%) than in those men homozygous for the wild-type CCR5 allele (6%) (P = 0.03). The propensity for infection with a virus having a syncytium-inducing phenotype provides a partial explanation for the rapid disease progression among some men heterozygous for the defective CCR5 Δ32 allele. Furthermore, we did not identify any primary viruses that used CCR3 as an entry cofactor, despite this CC chemokine receptor being expressed on the cell surface at a level commensurate with or higher than that observed for primary peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Whereas isolates of primary viruses of SIV also used STRL33/BONZO/TYMSTR and GPR15/BOB, no primary isolates of HIV-1 used these particular chemokine receptor-like orphan molecules as entry cofactors, suggesting a limited contribution of these other chemokine receptors to viral evolution. Thus, despite the number of chemokine receptors implicated in viral entry, CCR5 and CXCR4 are likely to be the physiologically relevant chemokine receptors used as entry cofactors in vivo by diverse strains of primary viruses isolated from blood.     

Neutralization Profiles of Primary Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Isolates in the Context of Coreceptor Usage

Most strains of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) which have only been carried in vitro in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (primary isolates) can be neutralized by antibodies, but their sensitivity to neutralization varies considerably. To study the parameters that contribute to the differential neutralization sensitivity of primary HIV-1 isolates, we developed a neutralization assay with a panel of genetically engineered cell lines (GHOST cells) that express CD4, one of eight chemokine receptors which function as HIV-1 coreceptors, and a Tat-dependent green fluorescent protein reporter cassette which permits the evaluation and quantitation of HIV-1 infection by flow cytometry. All 21 primary isolates from several clades could grow in the various GHOST cell lines, and their use of one or more coreceptors could easily be defined by flow cytometric analysis. Ten of these primary isolates, three that were CXCR4 (X4)-tropic, three that were CCR5 (R5)-tropic, and four that were dual- or polytropic were chosen for study of their sensitivity to neutralization by human monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies. Viruses from the X4-tropic category of viruses were first tested since they have generally been considered to be particularly neutralization sensitive. It was found that the X4-tropic virus group contained both neutralization-sensitive and neutralization-resistant viruses. Similar results were obtained with R5-tropic viruses and with dual- or polytropic viruses. Within each category of viruses, neutralization sensitivity and resistance could be observed. Therefore, sensitivity to neutralization appears to be the consequence of factors that influence the antibody-virus interaction and its sequelae rather than coreceptor usage. Neutralization of various viruses by the V3-specific monoclonal antibody, 447-52D, was shown to be dependent not only on the presence of the relevant epitope but also on its presentation. An epitope within the envelope of a particular virus is not sufficient to render a virus sensitive to neutralization by an antibody that recognizes that epitope. Moreover, conformation-dependent factors may overcome the need for absolute fidelity in the match between an antibody and its core epitope, permitting sufficient affinity between the viral envelope protein and the antibody to neutralize the virus. The studies indicate that the neutralization sensitivity of HIV-1 primary isolates is a consequence of the complex interaction between virus, antibody, and target cell.     

Patterns of CCR5, CXCR4, and CCR3 Usage by Envelope Glycoproteins from Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Primary Isolates

Coreceptor usage by Envs from diverse primary human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates was analyzed by a vaccinia virus-based expression and assay system. Usage of recombinant CCR5 and CXCR4 correlated closely with fusogenicity toward macrophages and T-cell lines expressing endogenous coreceptors. Surprisingly, recombinant CCR3 was utilized by most primary and T-cell-line-adapted Envs. Endogenous CXCR4 in macrophages was functional as a coreceptor.     

A Cell Line-Based Neutralization Assay for Primary Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Isolates That Use either the CCR5 or the CXCR4 Coreceptor

We describe here a cell line-based assay for the evaluation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) neutralization. The assay is based on CEM.NKR cells, transfected to express the HIV-1 coreceptor CCR5 to supplement the endogenous expression of CD4 and the CXCR4 coreceptor. The resulting CEM.NKR-CCR5 cells efficiently replicate primary HIV-1 isolates of both R5 and X4 phenotypes. A comparison of the CEM.NKR-CCR5 cells with mitogen-activated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) in neutralization assays with sera from HIV-1-infected individuals or specific anti-HIV-1 monoclonal antibodies shows that the sensitivity of HIV-1 neutralization is similar in the two cell types. The CEM.NKR-CCR5 cell assay, however, is more convenient to perform and eliminates the donor-to-donor variation in HIV-1 replication efficiency, which is one of the principal drawbacks of the PBMC-based neutralization assay. We suggest that this new assay is suitable for the general measurement of HIV-1 neutralization by antibodies.     

Microglia Express CCR5, CXCR4, and CCR3, but of These, CCR5 Is the Principal Coreceptor for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Dementia Isolates

Microglia are the main human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) reservoir in the central nervous system and most likely play a major role in the development of HIV dementia (HIVD). To characterize human adult microglial chemokine receptors, we analyzed the expression and calcium signaling of CCR5, CCR3, and CXCR4 and their roles in HIV entry. Microglia expressed higher levels of CCR5 than of either CCR3 or CXCR4. Of these three chemokine receptors, only CCR5 and CXCR4 were able to transduce a signal in microglia in response to their respective ligands, MIP-1β and SDF-1α, as recorded by single-cell calcium flux experiments. We also found that CCR5 is the predominant coreceptor used for infection of human adult microglia by the HIV type 1 dementia isolates HIV-1_DS-br, HIV-1_RC-br, and HIV-1_YU-2, since the anti-CCR5 antibody 2D7 was able to dramatically inhibit microglial infection by both wild-type and single-round luciferase pseudotype reporter viruses. Anti-CCR3 (7B11) and anti-CXCR4 (12G5) antibodies had little or no effect on infection. Last, we found that virus pseudotyped with the DS-br and RC-br envelopes can infect cells transfected with CD4 in conjunction with the G-protein-coupled receptors APJ, CCR8, and GPR15, which have been previously implicated in HIV entry.     

Neutralization Sensitivity of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Primary Isolates to Antibodies and CD4-Based Reagents Is Independent of Coreceptor Usage

We have investigated whether the identity of the coreceptor (CCR5, CXCR4, or both) used by primary human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates to enter CD4⁺ cells influences the sensitivity of these isolates to neutralization by monoclonal antibodies and CD4-based agents. Coreceptor usage was not an important determinant of neutralization titer for primary isolates in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. We also studied whether dualtropic primary isolates (able to use both CCR5 and CXCR4) were differentially sensitive to neutralization by the same antibodies when entering U87MG-CD4 cells stably expressing either CCR5 or CXCR4. Again, we found that the coreceptor used by a virus did not greatly affect its neutralization sensitivity. Similar results were obtained for CCR5- or CXCR4-expressing HOS cell lines engineered to express green fluorescent protein as a reporter of HIV-1 entry. Neutralizing antibodies are therefore unlikely to be the major selection pressure which drives the phenotypic evolution (change in coreceptor usage) of HIV-1 that can occur in vivo. In addition, the increase in neutralization sensitivity found when primary isolates adapt to growth in transformed cell lines in vitro has little to do with alterations in coreceptor usage.Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) enters CD4⁺ T cells via an interaction with CD4 and coreceptor molecules, the most important of which yet identified are the chemokine receptors CXCR4 and CCR5 (4, 12, 23, 26, 28, 32). CXCR4 is used by T-cell line-tropic (T-tropic) primary isolates or T-cell line-adapted (TCLA) lab strains, whereas CCR5 is used by primary isolates of the macrophage-tropic (M-tropic) phenotype (4, 12, 23, 26, 28, 32). Most T-tropic isolates and some TCLA strains are actually dualtropic in that they can use both CXCR4 and CCR5 (and often other coreceptors such as CCR3, Bonzo/STRL33, and BOB/gpr15), at least in coreceptor-transfected cells (18, 24, 30, 54, 89). The M-tropic and T-tropic/dualtropic nomenclature has often been used interchangeably with the terms “non-syncytium-inducing” (NSI) and “syncytium-inducing” (SI), although it is semantically imprecise to do so.M-tropic viruses are those most commonly transmitted sexually (3, 33, 87, 106) and from mother to infant (2, 72, 81). If T-tropic strains are transmitted, or when they emerge, this is associated with a more rapid course of disease in both adults (17, 37, 46, 51, 52, 76, 78, 82, 92, 101) and children (6, 45, 84, 90). However, T-tropic viruses emerge in only about 40% of infected people, usually only several years after infection (76, 78). A well-documented, albeit anecdotal, study found that when a T-tropic strain was transmitted by direct transfer of blood, its replication was rapidly suppressed: the T-tropic virus was eliminated from the body, and M-tropic strains predominated (20). These results suggest that there is a counterselection pressure against the emergence of T-tropic strains during the early stages of HIV-1 infection in most people. But what is this pressure?Since the M-tropic and T-tropic phenotypes are properties mediated by the envelope glycoproteins whose function is to associate with CD4 and the coreceptors, a selection pressure differentially exerted on M- and T-tropic viruses could, in principle, act at the level of virus entry. In other words, neutralizing antibodies to the envelope glycoproteins, or the chemokine ligands of the coreceptors, could theoretically interfere more potently with the interactions of T-tropic strains with CXCR4 than with M-tropic viruses and CCR5. A differential effect of this nature could suppress the emergence of T-tropic viruses. Consistent with this possibility, neutralizing antibodies are capable of preventing the CD4-dependent association of gp120 with CCR5 (42, 94, 103), and chemokines can also prevent the coreceptor interactions of HIV-1 (8, 13, 23, 28, 70).Here, we explore whether the efficiency of HIV-1 neutralization is affected by coreceptor usage. Although earlier studies have not found T-tropic strains to be inherently more neutralization sensitive than M-tropic ones (20, 40, 44), previously available reagents and techniques may not have been adequate to fully address this question. One major problem is that even single residue changes can drastically affect both antibody binding to neutralization epitopes and the HIV-1 phenotype (25, 55, 62, 67, 83, 91), and so studies using relatively unrelated viruses and a fixed antibody (polyclonal or monoclonal) preparation have two variables to contend with: the viral phenotype (coreceptor use) and the antigenic structure of the virus and hence the efficiency of the antibody-virion interaction.We have used a new experimental strategy to explore whether coreceptor usage affects neutralization sensitivity in the absence of other confounding variables: the use of dualtropic viruses able to enter CD4⁺ cells via either CCR5 or CXCR4. By using a constant HIV-1 isolate or clone and the same monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) or CD4-based reagents as neutralizing agents, we can ensure that the only variable under study in the neutralization reaction is the nature of the coreceptor used for entry. Our major conclusion is that there is no strong association between coreceptor usage and neutralization sensitivity for primary HIV-1 isolates. Independent studies have reached the same conclusion (53a, 59). The emergence of T-tropic (SI) viruses in vivo may be unlikely to be due to escape from antibody-mediated selection pressure.     

Primary Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2) Isolates Infect CD4-Negative Cells via CCR5 and CXCR4: Comparison with HIV-1 and Simian Immunodeficiency Virus and Relevance to Cell Tropism In Vivo

Cell surface receptors exploited by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) for infection are major determinants of tropism. HIV-1 usually requires two receptors to infect cells. Gp120 on HIV-1 virions binds CD4 on the cell surface, triggering conformational rearrangements that create or expose a binding site for a seven-transmembrane (7TM) coreceptor. Although HIV-2 and SIV strains also use CD4, several laboratory-adapted HIV-2 strains infect cells without CD4, via an interaction with the coreceptor CXCR4. Moreover, the envelope glycoproteins of SIV of macaques (SIV(MAC)) can bind to and initiate infection of CD4(-) cells via CCR5. Here, we show that most primary HIV-2 isolates can infect either CCR5(+) or CXCR4(+) cells without CD4. The efficiency of CD4-independent infection by HIV-2 was comparable to that of SIV, but markedly higher than that of HIV-1. CD4-independent HIV-2 strains that could use both CCR5 and CXCR4 to infect CD4(+) cells were only able to use one of these receptors in the absence of CD4. Our observations therefore indicate (i) that HIV-2 and SIV envelope glycoproteins form a distinct conformation that enables contact with a 7TM receptor without CD4, and (ii) the use of CD4 enables a wider range of 7TM receptors to be exploited for infection and may assist adaptation or switching to new coreceptors in vivo. Primary CD4(-) fetal astrocyte cultures expressed CXCR4 and supported replication by the T-cell-line-adapted ROD/B strain. Productive infection by primary X4 strains was only triggered upon treatment of virus with soluble CD4. Thus, many primary HIV-2 strains infect CCR5(+) or CXCR4(+) cell lines without CD4 in vitro. CD4(-) cells that express these coreceptors in vivo, however, may still resist HIV-2 entry due to insufficient coreceptor concentration on the cell surface to trigger fusion or their expression in a conformation nonfunctional as a coreceptor. Our study, however, emphasizes that primary HIV-2 strains carry the potential to infect CD4(-) cells expressing CCR5 or CXCR4 in vivo.     

Antibody Neutralization-Resistant Primary Isolates of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1

Although typical primary isolates of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) are relatively neutralization resistant, three human monoclonal antibodies and a small number of HIV-1⁺ human sera that neutralize the majority of isolates have been described. The monoclonal antibodies (2G12, 2F5, and b12) represent specificities that a putative vaccine should aim to elicit, since in vitro neutralization has been correlated with protection against primary viruses in animal models. Furthermore, a neutralization escape mutant to one of the antibodies (b12) selected in vitro remains sensitive to neutralization by the other two (2G12 and 2F5) (H. Mo, L. Stamatatos, J. E. Ip, C. F. Barbas, P. W. H. I. Parren, D. R. Burton, J. P. Moore, and D. D. Ho, J. Virol. 71:6869–6874, 1997), supporting the notion that eliciting a combination of such specificities would be particularly advantageous. Here, however, we describe a small subset of viruses, mostly pediatric, which show a high level of neutralization resistance to all three human monoclonal antibodies and to two broadly neutralizing sera. Such viruses threaten antibody-based antiviral strategies, and the basis for their resistance should be explored.     

Coreceptor Usage of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 Primary Isolates and Biological Clones Is Broad and Does Not Correlate with Their Syncytium-Inducing Capacities

Entry of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) into target cells is mediated by binding of the surface envelope glycoprotein to the CD4 molecule. Interaction of the resulting CD4-glycoprotein complex with α- or β-chemokine receptors, depending on the biological phenotype of the virus, then initiates the fusion process. Here, we show that primary HIV-2 isolates and biological clones, in contrast to those of HIV-1, may use a broad range of coreceptors, including CCR-1, CCR-3, CCR-5, and CXCR-4. The syncytium-inducing capacity of these viruses did not correlate with the ability to infect via CXCR-4 or any other coreceptor. One cell-free passage of the intermediate isolates in mitogen-stimulated, CD8⁺ cell-depleted peripheral blood mononuclear cells resulted in the outgrowth of variants with CCR-5 only, whereas the coreceptor usage of late and early isolates did not change. Since HIV-2 is less pathogenic in vivo than HIV-1, these data suggest that HIV pathogenicity in vivo is not directly related to the spectrum of coreceptors used in in vitro systems.     

Amino-Terminal Substitutions in the CCR5 Coreceptor Impair gp120 Binding and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Entry

The CC-chemokine receptor CCR5 is required for the efficient fusion of macrophage (M)-tropic human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) strains with the plasma membrane of CD4⁺ cells and interacts directly with the viral surface glycoprotein gp120. Although receptor chimera studies have provided useful information, the domains of CCR5 that function for HIV-1 entry, including the site of gp120 interaction, have not been unambiguously identified. Here, we use site-directed, alanine-scanning mutagenesis of CCR5 to show that substitutions of the negatively charged aspartic acid residues at positions 2 and 11 (D2A and D11A) and a glutamic acid residue at position 18 (E18A), individually or in combination, impair or abolish CCR5-mediated HIV-1 entry for the ADA and JR-FL M-tropic strains and the DH123 dual-tropic strain. These mutations also impair Env-mediated membrane fusion and the gp120-CCR5 interaction. Of these three residues, only D11 is necessary for CC-chemokine-mediated inhibition of HIV-1 entry, which is, however, also dependent on other extracellular CCR5 residues. Thus, the gp120 and CC-chemokine binding sites on CCR5 are only partially overlapping, and the former site requires negatively charged residues in the amino-terminal CCR5 domain.     

Continued Utilization of CCR5 Coreceptor by a Newly Derived T-Cell Line-Adapted Isolate of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1

The differential use of CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) and CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) may be intimately involved in the transmission and progression of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Changes in coreceptor utilization have also been noted upon adaptation of primary isolates (PI) to growth in established T-cell lines. All of the T-cell line-adapted (TCLA) viruses studied to date utilize CXCR4 but not CCR5. This observation had been suggested as an explanation for the sensitivity of TCLA, but not PI, viruses to neutralization by recombinant gp120 antisera and V3-directed monoclonal antibodies, but recent studies have shown coreceptor utilization to be independent of neutralization sensitivity. Here we describe a newly isolated TCLA virus that is sensitive to neutralization but continues to utilize both CXCR4 and CCR5 for infection. This finding further divorces coreceptor specificity from neutralization sensitivity and from certain changes in cell tropism. That the TCLA virus can continue to utilize CCR5 despite the changes that occur upon adaptation and in the apparent absence of CCR5 expression in the FDA/H9 T-cell line suggests that the interaction between envelope protein and coreceptor may be mediated by multiple weak interactions along a diffuse surface.     

Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Subtype C: Macrophage Tropism,Alternative Coreceptor Use,and the Molecular Anatomy of CCR5 Utilization

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 transmission selects for virus variants with genetic characteristics distinct from those of donor quasispecies, but the biological factors favoring their transmission or establishment in new hosts are poorly understood. We compared primary target cell tropisms and entry coreceptor utilizations of donor and recipient subtype C Envs obtained near the time of acute infection from Zambian heterosexual transmission pairs. Both donor and recipient Envs demonstrated only modest macrophage tropism, and there was no overall difference between groups in macrophage or CD4 T-cell infection efficiency. Several individual pairs showed donor/recipient differences in primary cell infection, but these were not consistent between pairs. Envs had surprisingly broad uses of GPR15, CXCR6, and APJ, but little or no use of CCR2b, CCR3, CCR8, GPR1, and CXCR4. Donors overall used GPR15 better than did recipients. However, while several individual pairs showed donor/recipient differences for GPR15 and/or other coreceptors, the direction of the differences was inconsistent, and several pairs had unique alternative coreceptor patterns that were conserved across the transmission barrier. CCR5/CCR2b chimeras revealed that recipients as a group were more sensitive than were donors to replacement of the CCR5 extracellular loops with corresponding regions of CCR2b, but significant differences in this direction were not consistent within pairs. These data show that sexual transmission does not select for enhanced macrophage tropism, nor for preferential use of any alternative coreceptor. Recipient Envs are somewhat more constrained than are donors in flexibility of CCR5 use, but this pattern is not universal for all pairs, indicating that it is not an absolute requirement.A majority of new human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infections are initiated by only a single genetic species, although in some, several closely related variants are transmitted (19, 26, 34, 44, 55). Nevertheless, in all cases, a molecular bottleneck occurs during transmission (8, 15, 22, 33, 56). This bottleneck does not appear to be simply a stochastic result of low-efficiency transmission since viral sequences in recipients do not typically reflect the majority sequences in donors, even in genital secretions responsible for transmission (22, 56). Identifying the biological factors that favor particular variants in transmission and/or establishment in new hosts is essential both to understanding the mechanisms of transmission and to developing approaches, including vaccines and microbicides, that might interrupt transmission.More than 15 years ago, it was recognized that new infections were nearly always initiated by HIV-1 variants that were macrophage tropic and non-syncytium inducing (NSI) in T-cell lines, even though donors often harbored variants that were syncytium inducing (SI) and non-macrophage tropic (55). The molecular basis for these characteristics was subsequently linked to use of the entry coreceptor CCR5 by macrophage-tropic/NSI transmitted variants (R5 strains), with exclusion of T-cell-line-tropic/SI or dual-tropic variants that use CXCR4 (X4 or R5X4 strains). The critical role for CCR5-using strains in transmission is underscored by the fact that individuals who genetically lack CCR5 expression are highly resistant to HIV-1 infection (32, 49). Many potential mechanisms have been offered to explain the requirement for CCR5-mediated transmission, including R5 infection of macrophages at sites of transmission, preferential uptake by dendritic cells at mucosal sites, selective transcytosis by epithelial cells, or greater susceptibility of CCR5-rich memory T lymphocytes that are the main reservoir for viral amplification during acute infection (reviewed in reference 35). However, the virus-cell interactions that underlie this powerful restriction remain to be defined.Even among transmission pairs in which donors harbored only R5 variants, however, genetic selection at transmission indicates that selective forces beyond just CCR5 use appear to be operative. In a cohort of serodiscordant Zambian couples infected with subtype C HIV-1 followed prospectively, in which transmission subsequently occurred, the gp120 envelope glycoprotein of transmitted variants were typically more compact than those of chronically infected donors, with shorter V1/V2 regions and fewer potential N-linked glycosylation sites (15). Similar genetic and/or serological selections have been identified in several additional, although not all, cohorts (8, 31, 33). One biological feature associated with the transmitted variants is greater sensitivity to neutralization by the infecting partner''s antibody (15). However, it is unclear what selective advantage this property would provide in an immune naïve recipient, compared with other variants present in donors, raising the possibility that these gp120 features may confer other biological characteristics favoring transmission and/or establishment of infection.In this study, we compared the tropism and coreceptor utilization characteristics of donor and recipient Env glycoproteins derived from subtype C heterosexual transmission pairs obtained near the time of acute infection that have previously been linked to this genetic selection pattern (15). Because of the potential role for macrophages in transmission and uncertainty over the importance of macrophage tropism per se in the bottleneck, we assessed these variants’ ability to mediate entry into primary human macrophages, as well as primary CD4⁺ T cells. In addition to CCR5 and CXCR4, a number of other G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) can support HIV-1 entry and infection in in vitro systems, although a role for these alternative coreceptors in vivo has yet to be identified. Therefore, to address the possibility that one of these pathways might be involved in sexual transmission and contribute to the molecular bottleneck, we asked if donor and recipient Envs differed in their abilities to use alternative coreceptors for entry. Finally, since HIV-1 gp120 molecules vary in the molecular details of how they interact with CCR5, and since CCR5 may be expressed differently in the context of different target cells (29), we determined whether molecular anatomy of CCR5 use was different between donor and recipient Envs. Finally, in addition to enabling comparison of donors and recipients within transmission pairs, the panel of Envs also enabled us to address the tropism and coreceptor characteristics of “chronic” versus “acute” subtype C Envs.     

Use of G-Protein-Coupled and -Uncoupled CCR5 Receptors by CCR5 Inhibitor-Resistant and -Sensitive Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Variants

Small-molecule CCR5 inhibitors such as vicriviroc (VVC) and maraviroc (MVC) are allosteric modulators that impair HIV-1 entry by stabilizing a CCR5 conformation that the virus recognizes inefficiently. Viruses resistant to these compounds are able to bind the inhibitor-CCR5 complex while also interacting with the free coreceptor. CCR5 also interacts intracellularly with G proteins, as part of its signal transduction functions, and this process alters its conformation. Here we investigated whether the action of VVC against inhibitor-sensitive and -resistant viruses is affected by whether or not CCR5 is coupled to G proteins such as Gα_i. Treating CD4⁺ T cells with pertussis toxin to uncouple the Gα_i subunit from CCR5 increased the potency of VVC against the sensitive viruses and revealed that VVC-resistant viruses use the inhibitor-bound form of Gα_i-coupled CCR5 more efficiently than they use uncoupled CCR5. Supportive evidence was obtained by expressing a signaling-deficient CCR5 mutant with an impaired ability to bind to G proteins, as well as two constitutively active mutants that activate G proteins in the absence of external stimuli. The implication of these various studies is that the association of intracellular domains of CCR5 with the signaling machinery affects the conformation of the external and transmembrane domains and how they interact with small-molecule inhibitors of HIV-1 entry.     

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.     

Influence of the CCR2-V64I Polymorphism on Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Coreceptor Activity and on Chemokine Receptor Function of CCR2b, CCR3, CCR5, and CXCR4

The chemokine receptors CCR5 and CXCR4 are used by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in conjunction with CD4 to infect cells. In addition, some virus strains can use alternative chemokine receptors, including CCR2b and CCR3, for infection. A polymorphism in CCR2 (CCR2-V64I) is associated with a 2- to 4-year delay in the progression to AIDS. To investigate the mechanism of this protective effect, we studied the expression of CCR2b and CCR2b-V64I, their chemokine and HIV-1 coreceptor activities, and their effects on the expression and receptor activities of the major HIV-1 coreceptors. CCR2b and CCR2b-V64I were expressed at similar levels, and neither molecule affected the expression or coreceptor activity of CCR3, CCR5, or CXCR4 in cotransfected cell lines. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from CCR2-V64I heterozygotes had normal levels of CCR2b and CCR5 but slightly reduced levels of CXCR4. CCR2b and CCR2b-V64I functioned equally well as HIV-1 coreceptors, and CCR2-V64I PBMCs were permissive for HIV-1 infection regardless of viral tropism. The MCP-1-induced calcium mobilization mediated by CCR2b signaling was unaffected by the polymorphism, but MCP-1 signaling mediated by either CCR2b- or CCR2-V64I-encoded receptors resulted in heterologous desensitization (i.e., limiting the signal response of other receptors) of both CCR5 and CXCR4. The heterologous desensitization of CCR5 and CXCR4 signaling by both CCR2 allele receptor types provides a mechanistic link that might help explain the in vivo effects of CCR2 gene variants on progression to AIDS as well as the reported antiviral activity of natural CCR2 ligands.     

V3 Recombinants Indicate a Central Role for CCR5 as a Coreceptor in Tissue Infection by Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1

Binding of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) envelope glycoprotein gp120 to both CD4 and one of several chemokine receptors (coreceptors) permits entry of virus into target cells. Infection of tissues may establish latent viral reservoirs as well as cause direct pathologic effects that manifest as clinical disease such as HIV-associated dementia. We sought to identify the critical coreceptors recognized by HIV-1 tissue-derived strains as well as to correlate these coreceptor preferences with site of infection and dementia diagnosis. To reconstitute coreceptor use, we cloned HIV-1 envelope V3 sequences encoding the primary determinants of coreceptor specificity from 13 brain-derived and 6 colon-derived viruses into an isogenic (NL4-3) viral background. All V3 recombinants utilized the chemokine receptor CCR5 uniformly and efficiently as a coreceptor but not CXCR4, BOB/GPR15, or Bonzo/STRL33. Other receptors such as CCR3, CCR8, and US28 were inefficiently and variably used as coreceptors by various envelopes. CCR5 without CD4 present did not allow for detectable infection by any of the tested recombinants. In contrast to the pathogenic switch in coreceptor specificity frequently observed in comparisons of blood-derived viruses early after HIV-1 seroconversion and after onset of AIDS, the characteristics of these V3 recombinants suggest that CCR5 is a primary coreceptor for brain- and colon-derived viruses regardless of tissue source or diagnosis of dementia. Therefore, tissue infection may not depend significantly on viral envelope quasispeciation to broaden coreceptor range but rather selects for CCR5 use throughout disease progression.     

Coreceptor Utilization by Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Is Not a Primary Determinant of Neutralization Sensitivity

We have examined the relationship between coreceptor utilization and sensitivity to neutralization in a primary isolate of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and its T-cell line-adapted (TCLA) derivative. We determined that adaptation of the primary-isolate (PI) virus 168P results in the loss of the unique capacity of PI viruses to utilize the CCR5 coreceptor and in the acquisition by the TCLA 168C virus of sensitivity to neutralization by V3-directed monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). In experiments wherein infection by 168P is directed via either the CCR5 or the CXCR4 pathway, we demonstrate that the virus, as well as pseudotyped virions bearing a molecularly cloned 168P envelope protein, remains refractory to neutralization by MAbs 257-D, 268-D, and 50.1 regardless of the coreceptor utilized. This study suggests that coreceptor utilization is not a primary determinant of differential neutralization sensitivity in PI and TCLA viruses.Although CD4 had long been recognized as the cellular receptor to which the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV) envelope protein binds (9, 21, 22), it had also been recognized that expression of CD4 alone is insufficient to render nonhuman cells susceptible to HIV infection (4, 5, 22). Similarly, different HIV isolates display different abilities to infect CD4-positive human macrophages, T lymphocytes, and established T-cell lines (31, 32, 35), suggesting that additional molecules may be responsible for cell tropism specificity. During the past year, cellular molecules that act in conjunction with CD4 have been identified as required cofactors for HIV envelope protein-mediated binding and entry (1, 6, 10–12, 14). These HIV coreceptors are members of the superfamily of seven-transmembrane segment G-protein-coupled receptors and act primarily as cellular receptors for chemokines.The discovery of cellular coreceptors for HIV has provided new perspectives for understanding these early events in HIV infection (see review in reference 2). Thus, phenotypically distinct isolates of HIV utilize as coreceptors different chemokine receptor molecules. Although all primary isolates of HIV infect primary T lymphocytes, some also infect cells of the macrophage lineage (31, 32). These monocyteropic isolates utilize the CCR5 chemokine receptor, whose natural ligands include the chemokines RANTES, MIP-1α, and MIP-1β (1, 6, 10–12). Monocytropic isolates do not induce syncytia in primary lymphocyte culture and do not infect established T-cell lines (31). During the late course of HIV infection, syncytium-inducing (SI) primary viruses often arise from the population of monocytropic viruses (31, 32). These SI primary isolates no longer infect macrophages, and they utilize both CCR5 and another chemokine receptor, CXCR4 (7, 33, 38). CXCR4, whose natural chemokine ligand is SDF-1 (3, 27), was originally identified by Feng et al. as the cofactor used by laboratory-adapted viruses (14). In fact, the common laboratory viruses (IIIb/LAI, LAV, and RF) are unable to utilize CCR5 coreceptor (1, 6, 10–12), presumably reflecting the lack of CCR5 expression in most established T-cell lines (1, 13). Although some primary isolates utilize additional chemokine receptor molecules, notably CCR3 and CCR2b (6, 11, 18), the relationship between these coreceptors and viral phenotypes is less clear. The ability to utilize CCR5 coreceptor, however, is unique to primary-isolate (PI) viruses.Paralleling these differences in coreceptor utilization and cell tropism are differences in sensitivity to virus neutralization. Although laboratory-adapted isolates of HIV can be potently neutralized by sera elicited by recombinant gp120 (rgp120) protein, primary isolates are largely refractory to neutralization by rgp120 vaccine sera (23, 37). Similarly, PI viruses are significantly more resistant than T-cell line-adapted (TCLA) viruses to neutralization by gp120-directed monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) (25, 37) and to inhibition by soluble forms of CD4 (8). We and others have demonstrated that neutralization sensitivity develops concomitantly with adaptation of primary isolates to persistent growth in established T-cell lines (24, 37). By studying pedigreed PI and TCLA viruses (168P and 168C, respectively), we have shown that adaptation renders the TCLA virus sensitive not only to rgp120 vaccine sera and CD4 immunoadhesin but also to MAbs directed to the V3 loop of gp120 (37). However, the basis for this increase in neutralization sensitivity remains unclear.In this report, we explore the relationship between neutralization sensitivity and coreceptor utilization, especially with regard to changes that accompany adaptation. We examined neutralization sensitivity of the well-characterized SI primary isolate 168P under experimental conditions where infection can be directed via either the CXCR4 or the CCR5 pathway. The pedigreed TCLA derivative 168C utilizes only CXCR4 and was sensitive to neutralization by the panel of V3-directed MAbs used in these assays. However, the primary isolate 168P remained refractory to neutralization regardless of coreceptor pathway taken. Our findings suggest that envelope protein structure, and not coreceptor utilization, is the primary determinant of differential neutralization sensitivity in PI and TCLA viruses.

Coreceptor utilization by pedigreed PI and TCLA viruses.

Cross-sectional surveys of coreceptor use have shown that primary SI isolates generally utilize CXCR4 and CCR5 coreceptors, whereas unrelated laboratory-adapted isolates utilize only CXCR4 (1, 6, 7, 10–12, 14, 33, 38). We wished to confirm this trend in a longitudinal study of adaptation. We previously described the adaptation of the SI primary isolate 168P to persistent growth in the FDA/H9 T-cell line and the concomitant development of neutralization sensitivity in the resulting TCLA virus 168C (37). In the present study, the ability of these pedigreed viruses to utilize specific coreceptors was tested by infection of U87 human glioma cell lines expressing CD4 (U87-CD4) and the specific coreceptor (19).For this assay, virus stocks were prepared from cell culture supernatants of phytohemagglutinin (PHA)-stimulated peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs) (168P) or FDA/H9 cells (168C) and standardized to yield a submaximal number of foci of infection on U87-CD4-CXCR4 cells (approximately 100 to 200 foci/96-well microplate culture). To confirm coreceptor specificity, in some assays CCR5 chemokines (each at 500 ng/ml) were added to cells 1 h prior to infection. After 2 days of incubation, cell monolayers were fixed with methanol-acetone and immunochemically stained with HIV immunoglobulin (HIVIG) (29), anti-human ABC kit (Biomeda Corp.), and diaminobenzidine substrate.Figure ​Figure11 confirms the ability of the SI 168P virus to utilize both CXCR4 and CCR5 and the subsequent loss of this latter specificity in the 168C TCLA virus. Infection was dependent on coreceptor expression, and both PI and TCLA viruses could also utilize CCR3 (data not presented). Open in a separate windowFIG. 1Coreceptor utilization by pedigreed PI and TCLA 168 viruses. U87-CD4 cell lines expressing CXCR4 (▪) or CCR5 () were used to define the ability of 168P and 168C viruses to utilize the respective coreceptor. CCR5 utilization was further tested by the addition to U87-CD4-CCR5 cells of CCR5-specific chemokines (RANTES, MIP-1α, and MIP-1β; R&D Systems) (□). For details, see text. ∗, no foci were observed.In keeping with the determined coreceptor specificity, infection could be blocked by addition of coreceptor-specific ligands. Thus, 168P virus infection of CCR5-expressing cells was blocked by the CCR5-specific ligands RANTES, MIP-1α, and MIP-1β (1, 6, 10–12) (Fig. ​(Fig.1).1). Similarly, infection of CXCR4-expressing U87-CD4 cells by either virus could be blocked by the CXCR4-specific chemokine ligand SDF-1 (3, 27) (data not presented).

Coreceptor pathway and neutralization sensitivity.

In previous work, we demonstrated that the PI 168P virus is refractory to neutralization by HIV MN gp120 vaccine sera and by several well-characterized V3-directed murine MAbs which strongly neutralize infectivity of the TCLA 168C virus (37). In the present study, we extended the panel of MAbs to include two V3-directed human MAbs, 257-D and 268-D (17). These well-characterized human MAbs recognize core epitopes at the crown of the V3 loop of gp120 (KRIHI and HIGPGR, respectively), linear sequences known to be present in both 168P and 168C envelope proteins (37). These epitope predictions were confirmed by gp120 capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (26) which demonstrated equal binding to envelope protein in detergent-solubilized 168P and 168C virions (data not presented). Sensitivity to neutralization by these human MAbs was determined in a standard assay using PHA-activated PBLs (37). MAbs 257-D and 268-D were found to potently neutralize 168C but fail to neutralize 168P (Fig. ​(Fig.2).2). This pattern of neutralization sensitivity is similar to that previously described for the V3-directed murine MAb 50.1 (30, 36, 37). Open in a separate windowFIG. 2Neutralization sensitivity of 168 viruses in PBL culture. Virus neutralization assays in PHA-stimulated PBL culture were performed as previously described (37). 168P (○, •) and 168C (□, ▪) virus stocks were standardized to yield submaximal extents of virus spread during the 5-day infection. CCR5-specific chemokines (•, ▪) were added as described for Fig. ​Fig.1.1. The V3-directed MAbs are indicated. p24 antigen was determined by p24 antigen capture ELISA (SAIC Frederick) and was normalized to infected cell control values (168P, 190 ng/ml [170 ng/ml with chemokines]; 168C, 36 ng/ml [33 ng/ml with chemokines]).To examine whether sensitivity to neutralization was affected by the coreceptor pathway utilized in infection of PBLs, we used inhibitory concentrations of CCR5-specific chemokine ligands RANTES, MIP-1α, and MIP-1β in order to restrict infection to the CXCR4 pathway. Addition of these chemokines to the PBL cultures did not affect virus growth, nor did it affect sensitivity to neutralization by the V3-directed human MAbs (Fig. ​(Fig.2).2). To the extent that CCR5 blockade was complete, these results suggest that the simple availability of the CCR5 pathway is not a factor in the resistance of PI viruses to neutralization.To strengthen this conclusion, we examined neutralization sensitivity in human U87-CD4 cell lines expressing only CXCR4 or CCR5. Using this method, we confirmed that the SI 168P virus remained refractory to neutralization by human MAbs 257-D and 268-D as well as by the murine MAb 50.1, regardless of whether infection occurred via CXCR4 or CCR5 (Fig. ​(Fig.3).3). These results suggest that availability of the CCR5 pathway is not a primary determinant for the resistance of PI viruses to neutralization. The TCLA 168C virus utilized CXCR4 only and was sensitive to neutralization. Open in a separate windowFIG. 3Neutralization sensitivity of 168 viruses in U87-CD4 cell lines expressing CCR5 or CXCR4 coreceptor. 168P (○, •) and 168C (▪) viruses were used to infect U87-CD4 cell lines expressing CXCR4 (•, ▪) or CCR5 (○) as described for Fig. ​Fig.1.1. The V3-directed MAbs were incubated with virus for 1 h prior to infection.

Molecularly cloned PI and TCLA envelope genes.

To understand better the changes that accompany adaptation and those that determine coreceptor utilization and neutralization sensitivity, we molecularly cloned the envelope genes of the 168P and 168C viruses. High-fidelity XL PCR (rTth and Vent DNA polymerases; PE Applied Biosystems) and primers envA and envN (15) were used to amplify a 3.1-kb region of proviral DNA encoding the rev and envelope genes. PCR products were isolated by unidirectional T/A cloning in the eucaryotic expression vector pCR3.1-Uni (Invitrogen). Expression in pCR3.1-Uni is driven by the cytomegalovirus immediate-early promoter. Multiple clones were isolated from each virus, and transient transfection studies in COS-7 cells confirmed the surface expression and fusion competence of all clones tested (data not presented).DNA sequence analysis demonstrated that all 168C molecular clones analyzed encoded the three adaptation-associated amino acid changes previously identified by PCR sequencing of the 168C virus population (V2, I166R; C2, I282N; and V3, G318R) (37). Two molecular clones of each 168P and 168C envelope were subjected to complete DNA sequence analysis (GenBank accession no. {"type":"entrez-nucleotide","attrs":{"text":"AF035532","term_id":"2827997","term_text":"AF035532"}}AF035532 to {"type":"entrez-nucleotide","attrs":{"text":"AF035534","term_id":"2828001","term_text":"AF035534"}}AF035534). Molecular clones 168C23 and 168C60 were identical throughout the envelope gene. Molecular clones 168P5 and 168P23 differed from each other and from the previously determined sequence at four to five positions distinct from those associated with adaptation. These scattered changes within the primary virus quasispecies are considered inconsequential at the present level of analysis; the significance of the three adaptation-associated changes is under separate investigation.Functional analysis of these molecularly cloned envelope genes was performed by incorporation of the molecularly cloned envelope protein into pseudotyped HIV virions. We used an envelope-defective provirus derived from the molecularly cloned NL4-3 provirus (kindly provided by I. S. Y. Chen, University of California, Los Angeles). The pNLthyΔBgl provirus (28) contains a BglII-BglII deletion within the envelope gene and a substitution of the viral nef gene with a cDNA encoding the murine Thy1.2 cell surface protein. The simian virus 40 ori was subsequently introduced into the plasmid to generate pSVNLthyΔBgl (27a). Cotransfection of COS-7 cells (16, 20) with pSVNLthyΔBgl provirus and the envelope expression plasmid resulted in the production of pseudotyped HIV virions. Culture supernatants were harvested 3 days posttransfection, filtered, and used to infect U87-CD4 cell lines expressing coreceptor. Cells infected by virions bearing the complementing envelope protein were identified by immunostaining for murine Thy1.2 or HIV proteins.As anticipated, the molecularly cloned envelope proteins recapitulated the coreceptor specificity of the parental virus population (see the legend to Fig. ​Fig.4).4). Pseudotyped virions containing 168C60 were able to infect only U87-CD4 cells expressing CXCR4, while virions containing 168P23 envelope were able to infect U87-CD4 cells expressing either CCR5 or CXCR4. Thus, the viral envelope protein appears to be the major, if not sole, determinant of viral coreceptor use. These findings also indicate that dual coreceptor use is a direct property of the envelope protein complex and not a result of a mixture of distinct envelope proteins in the SI virus population. This conclusion is corroborated by the failure of CCR5-specific chemokine ligands to diminish 168P virus infection in PBL culture (Fig. ​(Fig.22).Open in a separate windowFIG. 4Neutralization sensitivity of pseudotyped virions in U87-CD4 cell lines expressing CCR5 or CXCR4 coreceptor. Pseudotyped virions were derived by cotransfection of COS-7 cells with pSVNLthyΔBgl provirus and plasmid expressing 168P23 (○, •) or 168C60 (▪) envelope protein. Virion preparations were incubated with U87-CD4 cell lines expressing CXCR4 (•, ▪) or CCR5 (○) as described for Fig. ​Fig.1;1; V3-directed MAbs were added as indicated. The number of foci was normalized to control values (60 to 100 foci/well for U87-CD4-CXCR4 cells; 10 foci/well for U87-CD4-CCR5 cells). ∗, no foci were observed.Finally, we wished to determine the neutralization sensitivity of pseudotyped virions containing the molecularly cloned 168P23 and 168C60 envelope proteins and to confirm that coreceptor pathway is not a primary determinant of neutralization sensitivity. We found that infection of U87-CD4-CXCR4 cells by pseudotyped virions containing 168C60 envelope protein was sensitive to neutralization by MAbs 257-D, 268-D, and 50.1 at concentrations comparable to those determined in assays using 168C virus (Fig. ​(Fig.4).4). Pseudotyped virions containing 168P23 envelope protein remained refractory to neutralization by all three V3-directed MAbs, regardless of the coreceptor expressed by the U87-CD4 cell line. In summary, we examined the relationship between coreceptor utilization and sensitivity to neutralization by V3-directed MAbs. The observed dichotomy in the sensitivity to neutralization of PI and TCLA viruses had suggested a discrete difference between these viruses, and we tested one hypothesis: that PI viruses are refractory to neutralization as a result of their unique ability to utilize the CCR5 coreceptor. We examined neutralization sensitivity of a well-characterized SI primary isolate under experimental conditions wherein the virus was forced to utilize either CCR5 or CXCR4 for infection. We showed that coreceptor pathway is not a direct determinant of neutralization sensitivity. The primary virus envelope protein remained refractory to neutralization by V3-directed MAbs regardless of the coreceptor pathway utilized. Similarly, coreceptor utilization did not affect neutralization sensitivity by soluble CD4 (34) or HIVIG (data not presented).In discarding the otherwise attractive hypothesis that PI viruses escape neutralization through their unique ability to utilize CCR5, we are left to consider the as yet undefined structural differences between the envelope protein complex of PI and TCLA viruses. Several studies have suggested that critical determinants in the envelope protein of PI viruses are less accessible than those of TCLA viruses and that it is this differential access that determines neutralization sensitivity (reviewed in reference 25). By contrast, our studies have indicated similar binding of V3-directed MAbs to PBLs infected with neutralization-resistant isolate 168P or neutralization-sensitive isolate 168C (37). Thus, the basis for the differential neutralization sensitivity of PI and TCLA viruses remains unresolved.Our present studies also do not address whether changes in coreceptor utilization and/or neutralization sensitivity are necessarily linked as a consequence of adaptation. The analysis of independently derived PI and TCLA viruses may allow further separation of these viral phenotypes. Subsequent dissection of the amino acid changes that distinguish pedigreed PI and TCLA envelope proteins will help to define the structural bases underlying the changes that accompany adaptation.     

CXCR4 as a Functional Coreceptor for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection of Primary Macrophages

The coreceptors used by primary syncytium-inducing (SI) human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates for infection of primary macrophages were investigated. SI strains using only CXCR4 replicated equally well in macrophages with or without CCR5 and were inhibited by several different ligands for CXCR4 including SDF-1 and bicyclam derivative AMD3100. SI strains that used a broad range of coreceptors including CCR3, CCR5, CCR8, CXCR4, and BONZO infected CCR5-deficient macrophages about 10-fold less efficiently than CCR5⁺ macrophages. Moreover, AMD3100 blocked infection of CCR5-negative macrophages by these strains. Our results therefore demonstrate that CXCR4, as well as CCR5, is used for infection of primary macrophages but provide no evidence for the use of alternative coreceptors.     

Use of Coreceptors Other Than CCR5 by Non-Syncytium-Inducing Adult and Pediatric Isolates of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Is Rare In Vitro

We have tested a panel of pediatric and adult human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) primary isolates for the ability to employ the following proteins as coreceptors during viral entry: CCR1, CCR2b, CCR3, CCR4, CCR5, CCR8, CXCR4, Bonzo, BOB, GPR1, V28, US28, and APJ. Most non-syncytium-inducing isolates could utilize only CCR5. All syncytium-inducing viruses used CXCR4, some also employed V28, and one (DH123) used CCR8 and APJ as well. A longitudinal series of HIV-1 subtype B isolates from an infected infant and its mother utilized Bonzo efficiently, as well as CCR5. The maternal isolates, which were syncytium inducing, also used CXCR4, CCR8, V28, and APJ.