This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Countryman, J.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, G.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Countryman, J.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, G.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, October 2009, p. 10694-10709, Vol. 83, No. 20
0022-538X/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.01172-09
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Stimulus Duration and Response Time Independently Influence the Kinetics of Lytic Cycle Reactivation of Epstein-Barr Virus{triangledown}

Jill Countryman,1 Lyndle Gradoville,2 Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh,2 Jianjiang Ye,1 Lee Heston,2 Sarah Himmelfarb,1 Duane Shedd,2 and George Miller1,2,3*

Departments of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry,1 Pediatrics,2 Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 065203

Received 8 June 2009/ Accepted 26 July 2009

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) can be reactivated from latency into the lytic cycle by many stimuli believed to operate by different mechanisms. Cell lines containing EBV differ in their responses to inducing stimuli, yet all stimuli require de novo protein synthesis (44). A crucial step preliminary to identifying these proteins and determining when they are required is to measure the duration of stimulus and response time needed for activation of expression of EBV BRLF1 and BZLF1, the earliest viral indicators of reactivation. Here we show, with four EBV-containing cell lines that respond to different inducing agents, that stimuli that are effective at reactivating EBV can be divided into two main groups. The histone deacetylase inhibitors sodium butyrate and trichostatin A require a relatively long period of exposure, from 2 to 4 h or longer. Phorbol esters, anti-immunoglobulin G (anti-IgG), and, surprisingly, 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine require short exposures of 15 min or less. The cell/virus background influences the response time. Expression of the EBV BZLF1 and BRLF1 genes can be detected before 2 h in Akata cells treated with anti-IgG, but both long- and short-duration stimuli required 4 or more hr to activate BZLF1 and BRLF1 expression in HH514-16, Raji, or B95-8 cells. Thus, stimulus duration and response time are independent variables. Neither stimulus duration nor response time can be predicted by the number of cells activated into the lytic cycle. These experiments shed new light on the earliest events leading to lytic cycle reactivation of EBV.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University School of Medicine, Room 420 LSOG, 333 Cedar St., New Haven, CT 06520. Phone: (203) 785-4758. Fax: (203) 785-6961. E-mail: George.Miller{at}yale.edu

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 5 August 2009.

Journal of Virology, October 2009, p. 10694-10709, Vol. 83, No. 20
0022-538X/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.01172-09
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»