Introduction of Exogenous Epitopes in the Variable Regions of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Envelope Glycoprotein: Effect on Viral Infectivity and the Neutralization Phenotype

In this study we examined whether human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is equally susceptible to neutralization by a given antibody when the epitope of this antibody is introduced at different positions within the viral envelope glycoprotein (Env). To this end, we introduced two exogenous “epitope tags” at different locations within three major Env regions in two distinct HIV-1 isolates. We examined how the introduction of the exogenous epitopes affects Env expression, Env incorporation into virions, Env fusogenic potential, and viral susceptibility to neutralization. Our data indicate that even within the same Env region, the exact positioning of the epitope impacts the susceptibility of the virus to neutralization by the antibody that binds to that epitope. Our data also indicate that even if the same epitope is introduced in the exact same position on two different Envs, its exposure and, as a result, the neutralization susceptibility of the virus, can be very different. In contrast to the findings of previous studies conducted with HIV-1 isolates other than those used here, but in agreement with results obtained with simian immunodeficiency virus, we observed that tagging of the fourth variable region of Env (V4) did not result in neutralization by the anti-tag antibodies. Our data indicate that epitopes in V4 are not properly exposed within the functional HIV-1 trimeric Env spike, suggesting that V4 may not be a good target for vaccine-elicited neutralizing antibodies.The human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) envelope glycoprotein (Env) is expressed as a heavily glycosylated peptide of approximately 160 kDa (gp160), which is cleaved intracellularly into two noncovalently associated subunits: an extracellular subunit (gp120), responsible for CD4 and coreceptor (primarily CCR5 and/or CXCR4) binding, and a transmembrane subunit (gp41) that mediates fusion between viral and host cell membranes. Based on amino acid sequence homology analysis of gp120s derived from diverse HIV-1 isolates, gp120 is divided into five “constant” regions (C1 to C5) and five “variable” regions (also called “loops,” because most of them have cysteines in the N and C termini that form disulfide bonds). Despite their extensive amino acid variability, the variable loops of gp120 play central roles during the entry of the virus into the cell, for instance, by directly or indirectly modulating the interaction of Env with coreceptor molecules on the target surfaces during virus-cell fusion. They also offer protection from neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) by various mechanisms. The variable loops themselves are targets of NAbs, and during infection, the replicating virus accumulates mutations in the variable regions that allow it to escape the action of anti-variable loop-directed NAbs, while at the same time the variable loops are positioned within the Env trimer so that they prevent, or minimize, the binding of NAbs to more-conserved epitopes, such as the receptor and coreceptor binding sites (4, 5, 12, 15, 20, 23, 25, 27, 31).HIV-1 strains display distinct neutralization phenotypes. Some isolates, such as SF162, are generally susceptible to NAbs that bind to many distinct regions of Env, including the variable regions, while other isolates, such as YU2 or JRFL, are generally resistant to neutralization by the same NAbs (1). It has been proposed that irrespective of the overall neutralizing phenotype of HIV-1 isolates, the binding of only a single antibody per Env trimer on the virion surface can lead to neutralization, when all Env trimers present on the virion surface are bound by at least one antibody (32). This important observation also implies that the epitope specificity of an antibody may not be as important for neutralization as its ability to bind to its target within the trimeric Env structure. In fact, antibodies to diverse regions of Env, such as V1, V2, V3, and the receptor and coreceptor binding sites, can all neutralize HIV-1 (1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30).In many cases, a given isolate will not be equally susceptible to neutralization by NAbs that bind to different Env regions, for example, the V3 loop and the CD4-binding site (CD4-BS). Whether differences in the neutralizing potentials of two antibodies that bind to distinct epitopes on HIV-1 Env are due to differences in the binding affinities of the two antibodies or whether they occur because the viruses are intrinsically more susceptible to NAbs that bind certain epitopes and not others (i.e., the relative importance of the various regions of Env in Env function and virus neutralization sensitivity differs) is not yet fully understood. One way to address these issues is to introduce small non-HIV Env amino acid sequences (tags) that are targets of known monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) at various positions within the viral Env and to examine how the placement of the same epitope at different positions within Env affects the neutralization phenotype of the virus.Foreign epitopes have been introduced into the variable regions of HIV and simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) Envs, and their effects on viral neutralization potential have been examined (14, 19, 22, 33). Yang and colleagues (33) introduced the FLAG epitope into the V4 regions of three HIV-1 isolates (YU2, JRFL, and HxB2) displaying distinct neutralization phenotypes in response to anti-HIV NAbs; they found that all three pseudotyped viruses were equivalently neutralized by an anti-FLAG MAb. One important implication of that study is that neutralization-resistant isolates, such as YU2 or JRFL, are not intrinsically more resistant to neutralization than more-susceptible isolates, such as HxB2, so long as the antibody binds to its epitope on the functional virion-associated Env spike. A second implication is that since the FLAG epitope was exposed in the V4 loops of all three isolates, the V4 loop could theoretically be a good target for vaccine-elicited antibodies. In contrast, Pantophlet et al. (19) introduced the HA tag into various regions of the JRCSF (neutralization-resistant) and HxB2 (neutralization-sensitive) isolates and reported that JRCSF was intrinsically more resistant than HxB2 to anti-HA antibodies. This observation implies, therefore, that some HIV-1 strains (primary, neutralization-resistant strains) have developed mechanisms that limit the accessibility of multiple Env regions, including variable regions, to antibodies developed during infection. Laird and Desrosiers (14) introduced the FLAG epitope into two positions within each of the V1, V2, and V4 loops of SIV239 and SIV316. They reported that the functionality of Env was differentially affected by the precise location of the exogenous tag sequence within the variable loops examined. Importantly, and in contrast to what was reported for the HIV-1 isolates mentioned above, the SIV239 variants containing a V4 FLAG epitope were not neutralized by an anti-FLAG MAb. It appeared, however, that the FLAG epitope was not well exposed on the trimeric Env when introduced into the V4 loop of SIV but was exposed when introduced into the V1 loop of the same virus. Potentially, this means that the V4 loop is differentially exposed in the context of the HIV-1 and SIV Envs.The FLAG epitope (DYKDDDDK) is highly charged. Therefore, it is possible that the effect on Env function and epitope exposure could differ if a different exogenous epitope were inserted instead of FLAG. Here we examined the effect of variable loop tagging on the Env functions and viral neutralization phenotypes of two primary HIV-1 clade B isolates, SF162 (CCR5 tropic) and SF33 (CXCR4 tropic), using two exogenous epitopes (FLAG and hemagglutinin HA] tags) positioned at multiple locations within the V1, V2, and V4 loops. By placing the same tag in several regions within each loop, we investigated the accessibilities of various parts of the same loop to a given NAb. By using two tags that differ significantly in amino acid composition (FLAG tag, DYKDDDDK; HA tag, YPYDVPDYA), we aimed at distinguishing between the effects of amino acid composition and the positioning of the tag on Env function and overall epitope exposure. Finally, identical evaluations of R5 and X4 Envs may provide information about the relative roles played in neutralization by variable loops in Envs displaying distinct coreceptor usage. We report that both the amino acid sequence and the position of the tag within and among the variable loops greatly affected the functionality of Env. In contrast to previous observations made with other HIV-1 Envs (33) but in agreement with what was reported for the SIV239 Env (14), we observed that tagging of the V4 loops of SF162 and SF33 did not render these isolates susceptible to neutralization by the corresponding anti-tag MAbs.