JVI Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
JVI.01253-06v1
80/22/10919    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Sawtell, N. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Sawtell, N. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, November 2006, p. 10919-10930, Vol. 80, No. 22
0022-538X/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.01253-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evidence that the Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 ICP0 Protein Does Not Initiate Reactivation from Latency In Vivo{triangledown}

R. L. Thompson1 and N. M. Sawtell2*

University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Department of Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry, and Microbiology, 231 Albert Sabin Way, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0524,1 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-30392

Received 14 June 2006/ Accepted 25 August 2006

The stress-induced host cell factors initiating the expression of the herpes simplex virus lytic cycle from the latent viral genome are not known. Previous studies have focused on the effect of specific viral proteins on reactivation, i.e., the production of detectable infectious virus. However, identification of the viral protein(s) through which host cell factors transduce entry into the lytic cycle and analysis of the promoter(s) of this (these) first protein(s) will provide clues to the identity of the stress-induced host cell factors important for reactivation. In this report, we present the first strategy developed for this type of analysis and use this strategy to test the established hypothesis that the herpes simplex virus ICP0 protein initiates reactivation from the latent state. To this end, ICP0 null and promoter mutants were analyzed for the abilities (i) to exit latency and produce lytic-phase viral proteins (initiate reactivation) and (ii) to produce infectious viral progeny (reactivate) in explant and in vivo. Infection conditions were manipulated so that approximately equal numbers of latent infections were established by the parental strains, the mutants, and their genomically restored counterparts, eliminating disparate latent pool sizes as a complicating factor. Following hyperthermic stress (HS), which induces reactivation in vivo, equivalent numbers of neurons exited latency (as evidenced by the expression of lytic-phase viral proteins) in ganglia latently infected with either the ICP0 null mutant dl1403 or the parental strain. In contrast, infectious virus was detected in the ganglia of mice latently infected with the parental strain but not with ICP0 null mutant dl1403 or FXE. These data demonstrate that the role of ICP0 in the process of reactivation is not as a component of the switch from latency to lytic-phase gene expression; rather, ICP0 is required after entry into the lytic cycle has occurred. Similar analyses were carried out with the {Delta}Tfi mutant, which contains a 350-bp deletion in the ICP0 promoter, and the genomically restored isolate, {Delta}TfiR. The numbers of latently infected neurons exiting latency were not different for {Delta}Tfi and {Delta}TfiR. However, {Delta}Tfi did not reactivate in vivo, whereas {Delta}TfiR reactivated in ~38% of the mice. In addition, ICP0 was detected in {Delta}TfiR-infected neurons exiting latency but was not detected in those neurons exiting latency infected with {Delta}Tfi. We conclude that while ICP0 is important and perhaps essential for infectious virus production during reactivation in vivo, this protein is not required and appears to play no major role in the initiation of reactivation in vivo.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Division of Infectious Diseases, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45229-3039. Phone: (513) 636-7880. Fax: (513) 636-7655. E-mail: Sawtn0{at}chmcc.org.

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 30 August 2006.


Journal of Virology, November 2006, p. 10919-10930, Vol. 80, No. 22
0022-538X/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.01253-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Mol. Cell. Biol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2006 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.