Evidence for Translational Regulation by the Herpes Simplex Virus Virion Host Shutoff Protein

The herpes simplex virus (HSV) virion host shutoff protein (vhs) encoded by gene UL41 is an mRNA-specific RNase that triggers accelerated degradation of host and viral mRNAs in infected cells. We report here that vhs is also able to modulate reporter gene expression without greatly altering the levels of the target mRNA in transient-transfection assays conducted in HeLa cells. We monitored the effects of vhs on a panel of bicistronic reporter constructs bearing a variety of internal ribosome entry sites (IRESs) located between two test cistrons. As expected, vhs inhibited the expression of the 5′ cistrons of all of these constructs; however, the response of the 3′ cistron varied with the IRES: expression driven from the wild-type EMCV IRES was strongly suppressed, while expression controlled by a mutant EMCV IRES and the cellular ApaF1, BiP, and DAP5 IRES elements was strongly activated. In addition, several HSV type 1 (HSV-1) 5′ untranslated region (5′ UTR) sequences also served as positive vhs response elements in this assay. IRES activation was also observed in 293 and HepG2 cells, but no such response was observed in Vero cells. Mutational analysis has yet to uncouple the ability of vhs to activate 3′ cistron expression from its shutoff activity. Remarkably, repression of 5′ cistron expression could be observed under conditions where the levels of the reporter RNA were not correspondingly reduced. These data provide strong evidence that vhs can modulate gene expression at the level of translation and that it is able to activate cap-independent translation through specific cis-acting elements.The virion host shutoff protein (vhs) encoded by herpes simplex virus (HSV) gene UL41 is an endoribonuclease that is packaged into the tegument of mature HSV virions. Once delivered into the cytoplasm of newly infected cells, vhs triggers shutoff of host protein synthesis, disruption of preexisting polysomes, and degradation of host mRNAs (reviewed in reference 62). The vhs-dependent shutoff system destabilizes many cellular and viral mRNAs (36, 46, 67). The rapid decline in host mRNA levels presumably helps viral mRNAs gain access to the cellular translational apparatus. In addition, the relatively short half-lives of viral mRNAs contribute to the sharp transitions between the successive phases of viral protein synthesis by tightly coupling changes in the rates of synthesis of viral mRNAs to altered mRNA levels (46). These effects enhance virus replication and may account for the modest reduction in virus yield displayed by vhs mutants in cultured Vero cells (55, 61).vhs also plays a critical role in HSV pathogenesis: vhs mutants are severely impaired for replication in the corneas and central nervous systems of mice and cannot efficiently establish or reactivate from latency (63, 65, 66). Mounting evidence indicates that this attenuation stems at least in part from an impaired ability to disarm elements of the innate and adaptive host immune responses (reviewed in reference 62). For example, vhs suppresses certain innate cellular antiviral responses, including production of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines (68); dampens the type I interferon system (11, 45, 49, 78); and blocks activation of dendritic cells (58). Moreover, vhs mutants display enhanced virulence in knockout mice lacking type I interferon (IFN) receptors (37, 45) or Stat1 (48) and are hypersensitive to the antiviral effects of IFN in some cells in tissue culture (11, 49, 68). Thus, vhs is arguably a bona fide virulence factor.vhs present in extracts of HSV virions or purified from bacteria has nonspecific RNase activity capable of degrading all RNA substrates (15, 70, 71, 79). However, vhs is highly selective in vivo, targeting mRNAs and sparing other cytoplasmic RNAs (36, 46). In vivo and in mammalian whole-cell extracts, vhs-induced decay of at least some mRNAs initiates near regions of translation initiation and proceeds in an overall 5′-to-3′ direction (12, 13, 29, 52). Moreover, vhs binds to the translation initiation factors eIF4H, eIF4B, and eIF4A II, all components of the cap recognition factor eIF4F (10, 16, 17). Thus, it has been proposed that vhs selectively targets actively translated mRNAs through interactions with eIF4F components (17). Consistent with this hypothesis, recent data document that eIF4H is required for vhs activity in vivo (59).A previous report from this laboratory documented that the internal ribosome entry sites (IRESs) of the picornaviruses poliovirus and encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) strongly target vhs-induced RNA cleavage events to sequences immediately 3′ to the IRES in an in vitro translation system derived from rabbit reticulocyte lysates (RRL) (13). IRES elements are highly structured RNA sequences that are able to direct cap-independent translational initiation (reviewed in references 21, 25, 30, and 64). In the case of the poliovirus and EMCV elements, this is achieved by directly recruiting the eIF4F scaffolding protein eIF4G, thus bypassing the requirement for the cap-binding eIF4F subunit, eIF4E (reviewed in reference 30). Based on these data, we suggested that vhs is strongly targeted to the picornavirus IRES elements via interactions with eIF4 factors.A growing number of cellular mRNAs have been proposed to bear IRES elements in their 5′ untranslated regions (5′ UTRs). These include many that are involved in cellular stress responses, apoptosis, and cell cycle progression (24, 64, 74). Given the striking ability of picornavirus IRES elements to target vhs RNase activity in vitro, we asked whether viral and cellular IRES elements are able to modify the susceptibility of mRNAs to vhs in vivo. During the course of preliminary experiments designed to test this hypothesis, we unexpectedly discovered that vhs is able to strongly activate gene expression controlled by some cellular IRES elements and HSV 5′ UTR sequences in in vivo bicistronic reporter assays. These observations are the subject of the present report.     

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.     

Allele-Specific H3K79 Di- versus Trimethylation Distinguishes Opposite Parental Alleles at Imprinted Regions

Imprinted gene expression corresponds to parental allele-specific DNA CpG methylation and chromatin composition. Histone tail covalent modifications have been extensively studied, but it is not known whether modifications in the histone globular domains can also discriminate between the parental alleles. Using multiplex chromatin immunoprecipitation-single nucleotide primer extension (ChIP-SNuPE) assays, we measured the allele-specific enrichment of H3K79 methylation and H4K91 acetylation along the H19/Igf2 imprinted domain. Whereas H3K79me1, H3K79me2, and H4K91ac displayed a paternal-specific enrichment at the paternally expressed Igf2 locus, H3K79me3 was paternally biased at the maternally expressed H19 locus, including the paternally methylated imprinting control region (ICR). We found that these allele-specific differences depended on CTCF binding in the maternal ICR allele. We analyzed an additional 11 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) and found that, in general, H3K79me3 was associated with the CpG-methylated alleles, whereas H3K79me1, H3K79me2, and H4K91ac enrichment was specific to the unmethylated alleles. Our data suggest that allele-specific differences in the globular histone domains may constitute a layer of the “histone code” at imprinted genes.Imprinted genes are defined by the characteristic monoallelic silencing of either the paternally or maternally inherited allele. Most imprinted genes exist in imprinted gene clusters (10), and these clusters are usually associated with one or more differentially methylated regions (DMRs) (27, 65). DNA methylation at DMRs is essential for the allele-specific expression of most imprinted genes (31). Maternal or paternal allele-specific DNA methylation of a subset of DMRs (germ line DMRs) is gamete specific (27, 39). These maternal or paternal methylation differences are established during oogenesis or spermatogenesis, respectively, by the de novo DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b together with Dnmt3L (5, 26, 48). The gamete-specific methylation differences set the stage for the parental allele-specific action of germ line DMRs, some of which have been shown to control the monoallelic expression of the associated genes in the respective domains (11, 34, 36, 53, 66, 71-73, 77). These DMRs are called imprinting control regions (ICRs).Two recurring themes have been reported for ICR action. ICRs can function as DNA methylation-regulated promoters of a noncoding RNA or as methylation-regulated insulators. Recent evidence suggests that both of these mechanisms involve chromatin organization by either the noncoding RNA (45, 50) or the CTCF insulator protein (17, 32) along the respective imprinted domains. The CTCF insulator binds in the unmethylated maternal allele of the H19/Igf2 ICR and blocks the access of the Igf2 promoters to the shared downstream enhancers. CTCF cannot bind in the methylated paternal ICR allele; hence, here the Igf2 promoters have access to the enhancers (4, 18, 24, 25, 62). When CTCF binding is abolished in the ICR of the maternal allele, Igf2 expression becomes biallelic, and H19 expression is missing from both alleles (17, 52, 58, 63). Importantly, CTCF is the single major organizer of the allele-specific chromatin along the H19/Igf2 imprinted domain (17). Significantly, CTCF recruits, at a distance, Polycomb-mediated H3K27me3 repressive marks at the Igf2 promoter and at the Igf2 DMRs (17, 32).A role for chromatin composition is suggested in the parental allele-specific expression of imprinted genes. Repressive histone tail covalent modifications, such as H3K9me2 H3K9me3, H4K20me3, H3K27me3, and the symmetrically methylated H4R3me2 marks, are generally associated with the methylated DMR alleles, while activating histone tail covalent modifications, such as acetylated histone tails and also H3K4me2 and H3K4me3, are characteristic of the unmethylated alleles (7-9, 12-15, 17, 21, 33, 35, 43, 44, 51, 55, 56, 67, 69, 74, 75). Importantly, the maintenance of imprinted gene expression depends on the allele-specific chromatin differences. ICR-dependent H3K9me2 and H3K27me3 enrichment in the paternal allele (67) is required for paternal repression of a set of imprinted genes along the Kcnq1 imprinted domain in the placenta (30). Imprinted Cdkn1c and Cd81 expression depends on H3K27 methyltransferase Ezh2 activity in the extraembryonic ectoderm (64). Similarly, H3K9 methyltransferase Ehmt2 is required for parental allele-specific expression of a number of imprinted genes, including Osbpl5, Cd81, Ascl2, Tfpi2, and Slc22a3 in the placenta (44, 45, 70).There is increasing evidence that covalent modifications, not only in the histone tails but also in the histone globular domains, carry essential information for development and gene regulation. The H3K79 methyltransferase gene is essential for development in Drosophila (60) and in mice (22). H3K79 methylation is required for telomeric heterochromatin silencing in Drosophila (60), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (47, 68), and mice (22). The H4K91 residue regulates nucleosome assembly (76). Whereas mutations at single acetylation sites in the histone tails have only minor consequences, mutation of the H4K91 site in the histone H4 globular domain causes severe defects in silent chromatin formation and DNA repair in yeast (37, 42, 76).Contrary to the abundant information that exists regarding the allele-specific chromatin composition at DMRs of imprinted genes, no information is available about the parental allele-specific marking in the histone globular domains at the DMRs. We hypothesized that chromatin marks in the globular domains of histones also distinguish the parental alleles of germ line DMRs. In order to demonstrate this, we measured the allele-specific enrichment of H3K79me1, H3K79me2, H3K79me3, and H4K91ac at 11 mouse DMRs using quantitative multiplex chromatin immunoprecipitation-single nucleotide primer extension (ChIP-SNuPE) assays. In general, H3K79me3 was associated with the methylated allele at most DMRs, whereas the unmethylated allele showed enrichment for H3K79me1, H3K79me2, and H4K91ac. These results are consistent with the possibility that allele-specific differences in the globular domains of histones contribute to the “histone code” at DMRs.     

A New Borrelia Species Defined by Multilocus Sequence Analysis of Housekeeping Genes

Analysis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) spirochetes, using a novel multilocus sequence analysis scheme, revealed that OspA serotype 4 strains (a rodent-associated ecotype) of Borrelia garinii were sufficiently genetically distinct from bird-associated B. garinii strains to deserve species status. We suggest that OspA serotype 4 strains be raised to species status and named Borrelia bavariensis sp. nov. The rooted phylogenetic trees provide novel insights into the evolutionary history of LB spirochetes.Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) have been shown to be powerful and pragmatic molecular methods for typing large numbers of microbial strains for population genetics studies, delineation of species, and assignment of strains to defined bacterial species (4, 13, 27, 40, 44). To date, MLST/MLSA schemes have been applied only to a few vector-borne microbial populations (1, 6, 30, 37, 40, 41, 47).Lyme borreliosis (LB) spirochetes comprise a diverse group of zoonotic bacteria which are transmitted among vertebrate hosts by ixodid (hard) ticks. The most common agents of human LB are Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu stricto), Borrelia afzelii, Borrelia garinii, Borrelia lusitaniae, and Borrelia spielmanii (7, 8, 12, 35). To date, 15 species have been named within the group of LB spirochetes (6, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41). While several of these LB species have been delineated using whole DNA-DNA hybridization (3, 20, 33), most ecological or epidemiological studies have been using single loci (5, 9-11, 29, 34, 36, 38, 42, 51, 53). Although some of these loci have been convenient for species assignment of strains or to address particular epidemiological questions, they may be unsuitable to resolve evolutionary relationships among LB species, because it is not possible to define any outgroup. For example, both the 5S-23S intergenic spacer (5S-23S IGS) and the gene encoding the outer surface protein A (ospA) are present only in LB spirochete genomes (36, 43). The advantage of using appropriate housekeeping genes of LB group spirochetes is that phylogenetic trees can be rooted with sequences of relapsing fever spirochetes. This renders the data amenable to detailed evolutionary studies of LB spirochetes.LB group spirochetes differ remarkably in their patterns and levels of host association, which are likely to affect their population structures (22, 24, 46, 48). Of the three main Eurasian Borrelia species, B. afzelii is adapted to rodents, whereas B. valaisiana and most strains of B. garinii are maintained by birds (12, 15, 16, 23, 26, 45). However, B. garinii OspA serotype 4 strains in Europe have been shown to be transmitted by rodents (17, 18) and, therefore, constitute a distinct ecotype within B. garinii. These strains have also been associated with high pathogenicity in humans, and their finer-scale geographical distribution seems highly focal (10, 34, 52, 53).In this study, we analyzed the intra- and interspecific phylogenetic relationships of B. burgdorferi, B. afzelii, B. garinii, B. valaisiana, B. lusitaniae, B. bissettii, and B. spielmanii by means of a novel MLSA scheme based on chromosomal housekeeping genes (30, 48).     

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.     

Host and Viral Translational Mechanisms during Cricket Paralysis Virus Infection

The dicistrovirus is a positive-strand single-stranded RNA virus that possesses two internal ribosome entry sites (IRES) that direct translation of distinct open reading frames encoding the viral structural and nonstructural proteins. Through an unusual mechanism, the intergenic region (IGR) IRES responsible for viral structural protein expression mimics a tRNA to directly recruit the ribosome and set the ribosome into translational elongation. In this study, we explored the mechanism of host translational shutoff in Drosophila S2 cells infected by the dicistrovirus, cricket paralysis virus (CrPV). CrPV infection of S2 cells results in host translational shutoff concomitant with an increase in viral protein synthesis. CrPV infection resulted in the dissociation of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4G (eIF4G) and eIF4E early in infection and the induction of deIF2α phosphorylation at 3 h postinfection, which lags after the initial inhibition of host translation. Forced dephosphorylation of deIF2α by overexpression of dGADD34, which activates protein phosphatase I, did not prevent translational shutoff nor alter virus production, demonstrating that deIF2α phosphorylation is dispensable for host translational shutoff. However, premature induction of deIF2α phosphorylation by thapsigargin treatment early in infection reduced viral protein synthesis and replication. Finally, translation mediated by the 5′ untranslated region (5′UTR) and the IGR IRES were resistant to impairment of eIF4F or eIF2 in translation extracts. These results support a model by which the alteration of the deIF4F complex contribute to the shutoff of host translation during CrPV infection, thereby promoting viral protein synthesis via the CrPV 5′UTR and IGR IRES.For productive viral protein expression, viruses have to compete for and hijack the host translational machinery (45). Some viruses such as poliovirus, vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), and influenza virus selectively antagonize the translation apparatus to shut off host translation, resulting in the release of ribosomes from host mRNAs and the inhibition of antiviral responses. On the other hand, the host cell can counteract through antiviral mechanisms to shutdown viral translation. For instance, viral RNA replication intermediates can trigger PKR, leading to an inhibition of overall translation. To bypass the block in translation, viruses have evolved unique mechanisms to preferentially recruit the ribosome for viral protein synthesis. Thus, the control of the translational machinery during infection is a major focal point in the battle between the host and the virus and often, elucidation of these viral translational shutoff strategies reveals key targets of translational regulation.The majority of cellular mRNAs initiate translation through the recruitment of the cap-binding complex, eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4F (eIF4F), to the 5′ cap of the mRNA (56). eIF4F consists of the cap-binding protein eIF4E, the RNA helicase, eIF4A, and the adaptor protein eIF4G. eIF4G acts as a bridge to join eIF4E and the 40S subunit via eIF3. With the ternary eIF2-Met-tRNA_i-GTP complex bound, the 40S subunit scans in a 5′-to-3′ direction until an AUG start codon is encountered. Here, eIF5 mediates GTP hydrolysis on the ternary complex, releasing the eIFs and subsequently leading to 60S subunit joining to assemble an elongation-competent 80S ribosome. The ternary eIF2-Met-tRNA_i-GTP complex is reactivated for another round of translation by exchange of GDP for GTP, which is mediated by the guanine nucleotide exchange factor, eIF2B. The 3′ poly(A) tail of the mRNA also stimulates translational initiation by binding to the poly(A) binding protein (PABP), which in turn interacts with eIF4G at the 5′end, resulting in a circularized mRNA. PABP has been proposed to enhance eIF4E affinity for the 5′cap and promote 60S joining, indicating that PABP functions at multiple steps of translational initiation (33).A common tactic viruses use to inhibit host translation is to selectively target eIFs. One of the best studied is the cleavage of eIF4G by viral proteases during picornavirus infection. In humans, two isoforms, eIF4GI and eIF4GII, are cleaved early in poliovirus infection by the viral protease 2A, where cleavage of eIFGII correlates more precisely with host translation shutoff (20). Cleavage of eIF4G produces an amino-terminal fragment that binds to eIF4E and a C-terminal fragment that binds to eIF4A and eIF3 (26, 39, 42). PABP is also cleaved by the viral protease 3C during poliovirus infection, thus contributing to shutoff of both host and viral translation and thereby enabling the switch from viral translation to replication (3, 31, 38). Another major target is the availability of the cap-binding protein eIF4E, which is regulated by binding to the repressor protein 4E-BP (21, 41). 4E-BP and eIF4G compete for an overlapping site on eIF4E (42). In its hypophosphorylated state, 4E-BP binds to and sequesters eIF4E, preventing eIF4G recruitment. Dephosphorylation and activation of 4E-BP has been observed during poliovirus, encephalomyocarditis (EMCV), and VSV infections (7, 18).During virus infection, host antiviral responses are triggered that also inhibit translation to counteract viral protein synthesis. An integral antiviral response is phosphorylation at Ser⁵¹ of eIF2α, which reduces the pool of the ternary complex by blocking the eIF2B-dependent exchange of GDP to GTP. In mammals, four known eIF2α kinases exist including the endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-stress-inducible PERK, GCN2, which senses the accumulation of deacylated tRNAs during amino acid starvation conditions; the heme-regulated kinase HRI; and the interferon-inducible double-stranded RNA-binding PKR (64). In mammalian cells, PKR is activated by binding to double-stranded viral RNA replication intermediates, leading to eIF2α phosphorylation and inhibition of overall host and viral translation. PERK and GCN2 have also been shown to be activated during virus infections by VSV and members of the alphavirus family (2, 6, 43, 65, 79). Often, viruses rely on the ER for synthesis and proper folding of viral proteins. The large burden on the ER activates PERK to phosphorylate eIF2α, thereby inhibiting global protein synthesis to reduce the load on the ER (23). Some viruses such as HCV and herpes simplex viruses have adapted to responses that induce eIF2α phosphorylation by producing viral proteins that counteract PKR or modulate the ER stress response (27, 76). Thus, virus infection can trigger several eIF2α kinases that lead to translational shutoff to counteract viral protein synthesis.To circumvent these translation blocks, viruses such as poliovirus and hepatitis C virus utilize internal ribosome entry sites (IRES), which are RNA elements that directly recruit ribosomes in a cap-independent manner and require only a subset of canonical eIFs (15, 25). It is generally thought that IRES-containing viral mRNAs can be translated under conditions when specific eIFs are compromised during infection. Except for a few cases, the specific mechanisms and factors that lead to IRES stimulation is poorly understood. For example, poliovirus and the related EMCV possess an IRES that allows viral translation despite cleavage of eIF4G during infection or inhibiting eIF4E by 4E-BP binding. This type of IRES can still bind to the central domain of eIF4G and mediate 40S subunit recruitment (11, 37, 57).One of the most unique and simplest IRES is found within the intergenic region (IGR) of the Dicistroviridae family (for extensive reviews, see references 28, 36, and 49). Members of this family include the cricket paralysis virus (CrPV), drosophila C virus (DCV), taura syndrome virus, the Plautia stali intestine virus (PSIV), the Rhopalosiphum padi virus (RhPV), and several bee viruses such as the black queen cell virus and the Israeli acute paralysis virus, which has been recently linked to colony collapse disorder (10). The dicistroviruses encode a positive-strand 8- to 10-kb single-stranded RNA genome, which contains two main open reading frames, ORF1 and ORF2, encoding the nonstructural and structural proteins, respectively, separated by an IGR (see Fig. ​Fig.1A).1A). The 5′ end of the CrPV RNA is linked to the viral protein VpG and the 3′ end contains a poly(A) tail (16). Radiolabeling of intracellular RNA in infected cells reveals no subgenomic RNA species smaller than the full-length genomic RNA, and this has been supported by Northern blot analysis (16, 81). Translation of ORF2 is directed by the IGR IRES, whereas ORF1 expression is mediated by an IRES within the 5′ untranslated region (5′UTR) (35, 67, 81, 82). Remarkably, the IGR IRES element can directly recruit the ribosome independently of eIFs or the initiator Met-tRNA_i (29, 30, 54, 80). Furthermore, the IRES occupies the P-site of the ribosome to initiate translation from the ribosomal A-site encoding non-AUG codon (35, 81). Extensive biochemical and structural analyses from several groups have revealed that the IGR IRES mimics a tRNA that occupies the mRNA cleft of the ribosome and sets the ribosome into an elongation state (9, 29, 30, 34, 51, 55, 58, 68, 72, 83). Using reporter constructs, it has also been demonstrated that CrPV IGR IRES-mediated translation is active under a number of cellular conditions when the activity of the ternary complex eIF2-Met-tRNA_i-GTP is compromised (17, 63, 78, 80). Because IGR IRES-mediated translation does not require initiation factors, the IRES can direct translation under a number of cellular conditions when the activity of multiple eIFs is compromised (12). Although the majority of studies have focused on the IGR IRES of CrPV, PSIV, and TSV, it is predicted that the IGRs within this viral family all function similarly based on the predicted conserved RNA structures (28, 36, 49). In contrast, only the 5′UTR IRES mechanism of RhPV has been studied in detail (77). Despite the wealth of studies on the mechanics of these IRES, the mechanisms that lead to translational shutoff during dicistrovirus infection and the interaction of dicistrovirus with the host machinery to allow virus production have been relatively unexplored.Open in a separate windowFIG. 1.Kinetics of host protein synthesis and viral protein expression in CrPV-infected Drosophila S2 cells. (A) Genomic arrangement of the CrPV RNA. The viral open reading frames, ORF1 and ORF2, that encode nonstructural (NS) and structural (S) proteins, respectively, are shown, which are separated by the intergenic internal ribosome entry site (IGR IRES). Translation of ORF1 and ORF2 is directed by the 5′UTR IRES and the IGR IRES, respectively. The first amino acid of ORF2 directed by the IGR IRES is encoded by a GCU alanine codon. (B) Autoradiography of protein lysates resolved on a SDS-12% PAGE gel. The protein lysates were collected from S2 cells that were untreated (U), mock infected (M), CrPV infected (5 FFU/cell), or thapsigargin treated (Tg; 0.4 μM) for the indicated times (h p.i.) and metabolically labeled with [³⁵S]methionine for 30 min at each time point. The migration of proteins with known molecular masses is shown on the left. The expression of detectable nonstructural (NS) and structural (S) proteins is denoted. (C) Quantitation of host protein synthesis during CrPV infection. To calculate the host translation at each time point, the amount of radioactivity of the bands between 55 and 70 kDa in panel A was quantitated by using ImageQuant, and the percent translation was calculated at each time point of virus infection or thapsigargin treatment compared to the mock infection. Shown are averages (± the standard deviation) from at least three independent experiments. (D) Immunoblots of viral ORF1 and ORF2 during CrPV infection at various times postinfection (h p.i.). Antibodies were raised against peptides within ORF1 and ORF2. The expression of ORF1 and ORF2 was quantitated by a LI-COR Odyssey system, plotted against time of infection, and normalized to the amount of ORF1 or ORF2 expression at 6 h p.i. (100%). As a comparison, viral RNA synthesis as detected by Northern blot analysis (see Fig. ​Fig.2B)2B) is plotted on the same graph.Previous studies have shown that the CrPV and the related DCV can infect a wide range of insect hosts, including the Drosophila melanogaster S2 cell line (60, 69). In the present study, we have explored how CrPV infection leads to host translational shutoff in S2 cells. Two steps of translational initiation are targeted during CrPV infection. First, the interaction of deIF4G with deIF4E is disrupted early in infection and remains dissociated during the course of infection. Second, deIF2α is phosphorylated at a time that lags after the initial host translational shutoff during infection. Premature phosphorylation of deIF2α early in infection inhibited translation directed by the 5′UTR IRES, but IGR IRES-mediated translation remained relatively resistant. These results support the model that multiple mechanisms, including impairment of deIF4F complex formation and induction of deIF2α phosphorylation, contribute to the host translational shutoff during CrPV infection. The inhibition of host translation and the release of ribosomes from host mRNAs ensures that translation mediated by the 5′UTR and IGR IRES is optimal to produce sufficient viral nonstructural and structural proteins for proper CrPV maturation and assembly.     

Alignment of the c-Type Cytochrome OmcS along Pili of Geobacter sulfurreducens

Immunogold localization revealed that OmcS, a cytochrome that is required for Fe(III) oxide reduction by Geobacter sulfurreducens, was localized along the pili. The apparent spacing between OmcS molecules suggests that OmcS facilitates electron transfer from pili to Fe(III) oxides rather than promoting electron conduction along the length of the pili.There are multiple competing/complementary models for extracellular electron transfer in Fe(III)- and electrode-reducing microorganisms (8, 18, 20, 44). Which mechanisms prevail in different microorganisms or environmental conditions may greatly influence which microorganisms compete most successfully in sedimentary environments or on the surfaces of electrodes and can impact practical decisions on the best strategies to promote Fe(III) reduction for bioremediation applications (18, 19) or to enhance the power output of microbial fuel cells (18, 21).The three most commonly considered mechanisms for electron transfer to extracellular electron acceptors are (i) direct contact between redox-active proteins on the outer surfaces of the cells and the electron acceptor, (ii) electron transfer via soluble electron shuttling molecules, and (iii) the conduction of electrons along pili or other filamentous structures. Evidence for the first mechanism includes the necessity for direct cell-Fe(III) oxide contact in Geobacter species (34) and the finding that intensively studied Fe(III)- and electrode-reducing microorganisms, such as Geobacter sulfurreducens and Shewanella oneidensis MR-1, display redox-active proteins on their outer cell surfaces that could have access to extracellular electron acceptors (1, 2, 12, 15, 27, 28, 31-33). Deletion of the genes for these proteins often inhibits Fe(III) reduction (1, 4, 7, 15, 17, 28, 40) and electron transfer to electrodes (5, 7, 11, 33). In some instances, these proteins have been purified and shown to have the capacity to reduce Fe(III) and other potential electron acceptors in vitro (10, 13, 29, 38, 42, 43, 48, 49).Evidence for the second mechanism includes the ability of some microorganisms to reduce Fe(III) that they cannot directly contact, which can be associated with the accumulation of soluble substances that can promote electron shuttling (17, 22, 26, 35, 36, 47). In microbial fuel cell studies, an abundance of planktonic cells and/or the loss of current-producing capacity when the medium is replaced is consistent with the presence of an electron shuttle (3, 14, 26). Furthermore, a soluble electron shuttle is the most likely explanation for the electrochemical signatures of some microorganisms growing on an electrode surface (26, 46).Evidence for the third mechanism is more circumstantial (19). Filaments that have conductive properties have been identified in Shewanella (7) and Geobacter (41) species. To date, conductance has been measured only across the diameter of the filaments, not along the length. The evidence that the conductive filaments were involved in extracellular electron transfer in Shewanella was the finding that deletion of the genes for the c-type cytochromes OmcA and MtrC, which are necessary for extracellular electron transfer, resulted in nonconductive filaments, suggesting that the cytochromes were associated with the filaments (7). However, subsequent studies specifically designed to localize these cytochromes revealed that, although the cytochromes were extracellular, they were attached to the cells or in the exopolymeric matrix and not aligned along the pili (24, 25, 30, 40, 43). Subsequent reviews of electron transfer to Fe(III) in Shewanella oneidensis (44, 45) appear to have dropped the nanowire concept and focused on the first and second mechanisms.Geobacter sulfurreducens has a number of c-type cytochromes (15, 28) and multicopper proteins (12, 27) that have been demonstrated or proposed to be on the outer cell surface and are essential for extracellular electron transfer. Immunolocalization and proteolysis studies demonstrated that the cytochrome OmcB, which is essential for optimal Fe(III) reduction (15) and highly expressed during growth on electrodes (33), is embedded in the outer membrane (39), whereas the multicopper protein OmpB, which is also required for Fe(III) oxide reduction (27), is exposed on the outer cell surface (39).OmcS is one of the most abundant cytochromes that can readily be sheared from the outer surfaces of G. sulfurreducens cells (28). It is essential for the reduction of Fe(III) oxide (28) and for electron transfer to electrodes under some conditions (11). Therefore, the localization of this important protein was further investigated.     

Trafficking of UL37 Proteins into Mitochondrion-Associated Membranes during Permissive Human Cytomegalovirus Infection

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) UL37 proteins traffic sequentially from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) to the mitochondria. In transiently transfected cells, UL37 proteins traffic into the mitochondrion-associated membranes (MAM), the site of contact between the ER and mitochondria. In HCMV-infected cells, the predominant UL37 exon 1 protein, pUL37x1, trafficked into the ER, the MAM, and the mitochondria. Surprisingly, a component of the MAM calcium signaling junction complex, cytosolic Grp75, was increasingly enriched in heavy MAM from HCMV-infected cells. These studies show the first documented case of a herpesvirus protein, HCMV pUL37x1, trafficking into the MAM during permissive infection and HCMV-induced alteration of the MAM protein composition.The human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) UL37 immediate early (IE) locus expresses multiple products, including the predominant UL37 exon 1 protein, pUL37x1, also known as viral mitochondrion-localized inhibitor of apoptosis (vMIA), during lytic infection (16, 22, 24, 39, 44). The UL37 glycoprotein (gpUL37) shares UL37x1 sequences and is internally cleaved, generating pUL37_NH2 and gpUL37_COOH (2, 22, 25, 26). pUL37x1 is essential for the growth of HCMV in humans (17) and for the growth of primary HCMV strains (20) and strain AD169 (14, 35, 39, 49) but not strain TownevarATCC in permissive human fibroblasts (HFFs) (27).pUL37x1 induces calcium (Ca²⁺) efflux from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (39), regulates viral early gene expression (5, 10), disrupts F-actin (34, 39), recruits and inactivates Bax at the mitochondrial outer membrane (MOM) (4, 31-33), and inhibits mitochondrial serine protease at late times of infection (28).Intriguingly, HCMV UL37 proteins localize dually in the ER and in the mitochondria (2, 9, 16, 17, 24-26). In contrast to other characterized, similarly localized proteins (3, 6, 11, 23, 30, 38), dual-trafficking UL37 proteins are noncompetitive and sequential, as an uncleaved gpUL37 mutant protein is ER translocated, N-glycosylated, and then imported into the mitochondria (24, 26).Ninety-nine percent of ∼1,000 mitochondrial proteins are synthesized in the cytosol and directly imported into the mitochondria (13). However, the mitochondrial import of ER-synthesized proteins is poorly understood. One potential pathway is the use of the mitochondrion-associated membrane (MAM) as a transfer waypoint. The MAM is a specialized ER subdomain enriched in lipid-synthetic enzymes, lipid-associated proteins, such as sigma-1 receptor, and chaperones (18, 45). The MAM, the site of contact between the ER and the mitochondria, permits the translocation of membrane-bound lipids, including ceramide, between the two organelles (40). The MAM also provides enriched Ca²⁺ microdomains for mitochondrial signaling (15, 36, 37, 43, 48). One macromolecular MAM complex involved in efficient ER-to-mitochondrion Ca²⁺ transfer is comprised of ER-bound inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate receptor 3 (IP3R3), cytosolic Grp75, and a MOM-localized voltage-dependent anion channel (VDAC) (42). Another MAM-stabilizing protein complex utilizes mitofusin 2 (Mfn2) to tether ER and mitochondrial organelles together (12).HCMV UL37 proteins traffic into the MAM of transiently transfected HFFs and HeLa cells, directed by their NH₂-terminal leaders (8, 47). To determine whether the MAM is targeted by UL37 proteins during infection, we fractionated HCMV-infected cells and examined pUL37x1 trafficking in microsomes, mitochondria, and the MAM throughout all temporal phases of infection. Because MAM domains physically bridge two organelles, multiple markers were employed to verify the purity and identity of the fractions (7, 8, 19, 46, 47).(These studies were performed in part by Chad Williamson in partial fulfillment of his doctoral studies in the Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics Program at George Washington Institute of Biomedical Sciences.)HFFs and life-extended (LE)-HFFs were grown and not infected or infected with HCMV (strain AD169) at a multiplicity of 3 PFU/cell as previously described (8, 26, 47). Heavy (6,300 × g) and light (100,000 × g) MAM fractions, mitochondria, and microsomes were isolated at various times of infection and quantified as described previously (7, 8, 47). Ten- or 20-μg amounts of total lysate or of subcellular fractions were resolved by SDS-PAGE in 4 to 12% Bis-Tris NuPage gels (Invitrogen) and examined by Western analyses (7, 8, 26). Twenty-microgram amounts of the fractions were not treated or treated with proteinase K (3 μg) for 20 min on ice, resolved by SDS-PAGE, and probed by Western analysis. The blots were probed with rabbit anti-UL37x1 antiserum (DC35), goat anti-dolichyl phosphate mannose synthase 1 (DPM1), goat anti-COX2 (both from Santa Cruz Biotechnology), mouse anti-Grp75 (StressGen Biotechnologies), and the corresponding horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibodies (8, 47). Reactive proteins were detected by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) reagents (Pierce), and images were digitized as described previously (26, 47).     

Heavily Isotype-Dependent Protective Activities of Human Antibodies against Vaccinia Virus Extracellular Virion Antigen B5

Antibodies against the extracellular virion (EV or EEV) form of vaccinia virus are an important component of protective immunity in animal models and likely contribute to the protection of immunized humans against poxviruses. Using fully human monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), we now have shown that the protective attributes of the human anti-B5 antibody response to the smallpox vaccine (vaccinia virus) are heavily dependent on effector functions. By switching Fc domains of a single MAb, we have definitively shown that neutralization in vitro—and protection in vivo in a mouse model—by the human anti-B5 immunoglobulin G MAbs is isotype dependent, thereby demonstrating that efficient protection by these antibodies is not simply dependent on binding an appropriate vaccinia virion antigen with high affinity but in fact requires antibody effector function. The complement components C3 and C1q, but not C5, were required for neutralization. We also have demonstrated that human MAbs against B5 can potently direct complement-dependent cytotoxicity of vaccinia virus-infected cells. Each of these results was then extended to the polyclonal human antibody response to the smallpox vaccine. A model is proposed to explain the mechanism of EV neutralization. Altogether these findings enhance our understanding of the central protective activities of smallpox vaccine-elicited antibodies in immunized humans.The smallpox vaccine, live vaccinia virus (VACV), is frequently considered the gold standard of human vaccines and has been enormously effective in preventing smallpox disease. The smallpox vaccine led to the worldwide eradication of the disease via massive vaccination campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s, one of the greatest successes of modern medicine (30). However, despite the efficacy of the smallpox vaccine, the mechanisms of protection remain unclear. Understanding those mechanisms is key for developing immunologically sound vaccinology principles that can be applied to the design of future vaccines for other infectious diseases (3, 101).Clinical studies of fatal human cases of smallpox disease (variola virus infection) have shown that neutralizing antibody titers were either low or absent in patient serum (24, 68). In contrast, neutralizing antibody titers for the VACV intracellular mature virion (MV or IMV) were correlated with protection of vaccinees against smallpox (68). VACV immune globulin (VIG) (human polyclonal antibodies) is a promising treatment against smallpox (47), since it was able to reduce the number of smallpox cases ∼80% among variola-exposed individuals in four case-controlled clinical studies (43, 47, 52, 53, 69). In animal studies, neutralizing antibodies are crucial for protecting primates and mice against pathogenic poxviruses (3, 7, 17, 21, 27, 35, 61, 66, 85).The specificities and the functions of protective antipoxvirus antibodies have been areas of intensive research, and the mechanics of poxvirus neutralization have been debated for years. There are several interesting features and problems associated with the antibody response to variola virus and related poxviruses, including the large size of the viral particles and the various abundances of many distinct surface proteins (18, 75, 91, 93). Furthermore, poxviruses have two distinct virion forms, intracellular MV and extracellular enveloped virions (EV or EEV), each with a unique biology. Most importantly, MV and EV virions share no surface proteins (18, 93), and therefore, there is no single neutralizing antibody that can neutralize both virion forms. As such, an understanding of virion structure is required to develop knowledge regarding the targets of protective antibodies.Neutralizing antibodies confer protection mainly through the recognition of antigens on the surface of a virus. A number of groups have discovered neutralizing antibody targets of poxviruses in animals and humans (3). The relative roles of antibodies against MV and EV in protective immunity still remain somewhat unclear. There are compelling data that antibodies against MV (21, 35, 39, 66, 85, 90, 91) or EV (7, 16, 17, 36, 66, 91) are sufficient for protection, and a combination of antibodies against both targets is most protective (66). It remains controversial whether antibodies to one virion form are more important than those to the other (3, 61, 66). The most abundant viral particles are MV, which accumulate in infected cells and are released as cells die (75). Neutralization of MV is relatively well characterized (3, 8, 21, 35). EV, while less abundant, are critical for viral spread and virulence in vivo (93, 108). Neutralization of EV has remained more enigmatic (3).B5R (also known as B5 or WR187), one of five known EV-specific proteins, is highly conserved among different strains of VACV and in other orthopoxviruses (28, 49). B5 was identified as a protective antigen by Galmiche et al., and the available evidence indicated that the protection was mediated by anti-B5 antibodies (36). Since then, a series of studies have examined B5 as a potential recombinant vaccine antigen or as a target of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) (1, 2, 7, 17, 40, 46, 66, 91, 110). It is known that humans immunized with the smallpox vaccine make antibodies against B5 (5, 22, 62, 82). It is also known that animals receiving the smallpox vaccine generate antibodies against B5 (7, 20, 27, 70). Furthermore, previous neutralization assays have indicated that antibodies generated against B5 are primarily responsible for neutralization of VACV EV (5, 83). Recently Chen at al. generated chimpanzee-human fusion MAbs against B5 and showed that the MAbs can protect mice from lethal challenge with virulent VACV (17). We recently reported, in connection with a study using murine monoclonal antibodies, that neutralization of EV is highly complement dependent and the ability of anti-B5 MAbs to protect in vivo correlated with their ability to neutralize EV in a complement-dependent manner (7).The focus of the study described here was to elucidate the mechanisms of EV neutralization, focusing on the human antibody response to B5. Our overall goal is to understand underlying immunobiological and virological parameters that determine the emergence of protective antiviral immune responses in humans.     

Analysis of the Viral Elements Required in the Nuclear Import of HIV-1 DNA

HIV-1 possesses an exquisite ability to infect cells independently from their cycling status by undergoing an active phase of nuclear import through the nuclear pore. This property has been ascribed to the presence of karyophilic elements present in viral nucleoprotein complexes, such as the matrix protein (MA); Vpr; the integrase (IN); and a cis-acting structure present in the newly synthesized DNA, the DNA flap. However, their role in nuclear import remains controversial at best. In the present study, we carried out a comprehensive analysis of the role of these elements in nuclear import in a comparison between several primary cell types, including stimulated lymphocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells. We show that despite the fact that none of these elements is absolutely required for nuclear import, disruption of the central polypurine tract-central termination sequence (cPPT-CTS) clearly affects the kinetics of viral DNA entry into the nucleus. This effect is independent of the cell cycle status of the target cells and is observed in cycling as well as in nondividing primary cells, suggesting that nuclear import of viral DNA may occur similarly under both conditions. Nonetheless, this study indicates that other components are utilized along with the cPPT-CTS for an efficient entry of viral DNA into the nucleus.Lentiviruses display an exquisite ability to infect dividing and nondividing cells alike that is unequalled among Retroviridae. This property is thought to be due to the particular behavior or composition of the viral nucleoprotein complexes (NPCs) that are liberated into the cytoplasm of target cells upon virus-to-cell membrane fusion and that allow lentiviruses to traverse an intact nuclear membrane (17, 28, 29, 39, 52, 55, 67, 79). In the case of the human immunodeficiency type I virus (HIV-1), several studies over the years identified viral components of such structures with intrinsic karyophilic properties and thus perfect candidates for mediation of the passage of viral DNA (vDNA) through the nuclear pore: the matrix protein (MA); Vpr; the integrase (IN); and a three-stranded DNA flap, a structure present in neo-synthesized viral DNA, specified by the central polypurine tract-central termination sequence (cPPT-CTS). It is clear that these elements may mediate nuclear import directly or via the recruitment of the host''s proteins, and indeed, several cellular proteins have been found to influence HIV-1 infection during nuclear import, like the karyopherin α2 Rch1 (38); importin 7 (3, 30, 93); the transportin SR-2 (13, 20); or the nucleoporins Nup98 (27), Nup358/RANBP2, and Nup153 (13, 56).More recently, the capsid protein (CA), the main structural component of viral nucleoprotein complexes at least upon their cytoplasmic entry, has also been suggested to be involved in nuclear import or in postnuclear entry steps (14, 25, 74, 90, 92). Whether this is due to a role for CA in the shaping of viral nucleoprotein complexes or to a direct interaction between CA and proteins involved in nuclear import remains at present unknown.Despite a large number of reports, no single viral or cellular element has been described as absolutely necessary or sufficient to mediate lentiviral nuclear import, and important controversies as to the experimental evidences linking these elements to this step exist. For example, MA was among the first viral protein of HIV-1 described to be involved in nuclear import, and 2 transferable nuclear localization signals (NLSs) have been described to occur at its N and C termini (40). However, despite the fact that early studies indicated that the mutation of these NLSs perturbed HIV-1 nuclear import and infection specifically in nondividing cells, such as macrophages (86), these findings failed to be confirmed in more-recent studies (23, 33, 34, 57, 65, 75).Similarly, Vpr has been implicated by several studies of the nuclear import of HIV-1 DNA (1, 10, 21, 43, 45, 47, 64, 69, 72, 73, 85). Vpr does not possess classical NLSs, yet it displays a transferable nucleophilic activity when fused to heterologous proteins (49-51, 53, 77, 81) and has been shown to line onto the nuclear envelope (32, 36, 47, 51, 58), where it can truly facilitate the passage of the viral genome into the nucleus. However, the role of Vpr in this step remains controversial, as in some instances Vpr is not even required for viral replication in nondividing cells (1, 59).Conflicting results concerning the role of IN during HIV-1 nuclear import also exist. Indeed, several transferable NLSs have been described to occur in the catalytic core and the C-terminal DNA binding domains of IN, but for some of these, initial reports of nuclear entry defects (2, 9, 22, 46, 71) were later shown to result from defects at steps other than nuclear import (60, 62, 70, 83). These reports do not exclude a role for the remaining NLSs in IN during nuclear import, and they do not exclude the possibility that IN may mediate this step by associating with components of the cellular nuclear import machinery, such as importin alpha and beta (41), importin 7 (3, 30, 93, 98), and, more recently, transportin-SR2 (20).The central DNA flap, a structure present in lentiviruses and in at least 1 yeast retroelement (44), but not in other orthoretroviruses, has also been involved in the nuclear import of viral DNA (4, 6, 7, 31, 78, 84, 95, 96), and more recently, it has been proposed to provide a signal for viral nucleoprotein complexes uncoating in the proximity of the nuclear pore, with the consequence of providing a signal for import (8). However, various studies showed an absence or weakness of nuclear entry defects in viruses devoid of the DNA flap (24, 26, 44, 61).Overall, the importance of viral factors in HIV-1 nuclear import is still unclear. The discrepancies concerning the role of MA, IN, Vpr, and cPPT-CTS in HIV-1 nuclear import could in part be explained by their possible redundancy. To date, only one comprehensive study analyzed the role of these four viral potentially karyophilic elements together (91). This study showed that an HIV-1 chimera where these elements were either deleted or replaced by their murine leukemia virus (MLV) counterparts was, in spite of an important infectivity defect, still able to infect cycling and cell cycle-arrested cell lines to similar efficiencies. If this result indicated that the examined viral elements of HIV-1 were dispensable for the cell cycle independence of HIV, as infections proceeded equally in cycling and arrested cells, they did not prove that they were not required in nuclear import, because chimeras displayed a severe infectivity defect that precluded their comparison with the wild type (WT).Nuclear import and cell cycle independence may not be as simply linked as previously thought. On the one hand, there has been no formal demonstration that the passage through the nuclear pore, and thus nuclear import, is restricted to nondividing cells, and for what we know, this passage may be an obligatory step in HIV infection in all cells, irrespective of their cycling status. In support of this possibility, certain mutations in viral elements of HIV affect nuclear import in dividing as well as in nondividing cells (4, 6, 7, 31, 84, 95). On the other hand, cell cycle-independent infection may be a complex phenomenon that is made possible not only by the ability of viral DNA to traverse the nuclear membrane but also by its ability to cope with pre- and postnuclear entry events, as suggested by the phenotypes of certain CA mutants (74, 92).Given that the cellular environment plays an important role during the early steps of viral infection, we chose to analyze the role of the four karyophilic viral elements of HIV-1 during infection either alone or combined in a wide comparison between cells highly susceptible to infection and more-restrictive primary cell targets of HIV-1 in vivo, such as primary blood lymphocytes (PBLs), monocyte-derived macrophages (MDM), and dendritic cells (DCs).In this study, we show that an HIV-1-derived virus in which the 2 NLSs of MA are mutated and the IN, Vpr, and cPPT-CTS elements are removed displays no detectable nuclear import defect in HeLa cells independently of their cycling status. However, this mutant virus is partially impaired for nuclear entry in primary cells and more specifically in DCs and PBLs. We found that this partial defect is specified by the cPPT-CTS, while the 3 remaining elements seem to play no role in nuclear import. Thus, our study indicates that the central DNA flap specifies the most important role among the viral elements involved thus far in nuclear import. However, it also clearly indicates that the role played by the central DNA flap is not absolute and that its importance varies depending on the cell type, independently from the dividing status of the cell.