Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Virology, May 1999, p. 3524-3533, Vol. 73, No. 5
0022-538X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Role of Rubella Virus Glycoprotein Domains in
Assembly of Virus-Like Particles
Mike
Garbutt,
Lok Man J.
Law,
Honey
Chan, and
Tom C.
Hobman*
Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H7, Canada
Received 15 October 1998/Accepted 26 January 1999
 |
ABSTRACT |
Rubella virus is a small enveloped positive-strand RNA virus that
assembles on intracellular membranes in a variety of cell types. The
virus structural proteins contain all of the information necessary to
mediate the assembly of virus-like particles in the Golgi complex. We
have recently identified intracellular retention signals within the two
viral envelope glycoproteins. E2 contains a Golgi retention signal in
its transmembrane domain, whereas a signal for retention in the
endoplasmic reticulum has been localized to the transmembrane and
cytoplasmic domains of E1 (T. C. Hobman, L. Woodward, and M. G. Farquhar, Mol. Biol. Cell 6:7-20, 1995; T. C. Hobman, H. F. Lemon, and K. Jewell, J. Virol. 71:7670-7680, 1997). In the
present study, we have analyzed the role of these retention signals in
the assembly of rubella virus-like particles. Deletion or replacement
of these domains with analogous regions from other type I membrane
glycoproteins resulted in failure of rubella virus-like particles to be
secreted from transfected cells. The E1 transmembrane and cytoplasmic
domains were not required for targeting of the structural proteins to
the Golgi complex and, surprisingly, assembly and budding of virus
particles into the lumen of this organelle; however, the resultant
particles were not secreted. In contrast, replacement or alteration of
the E2 transmembrane or cytoplasmic domain, respectively, abrogated the
targeting of the structural proteins to the budding site, and
consequently, no virion formation was observed. These results indicate
that the transmembrane and cytoplasmic domains of E2 and E1 are
required for early and late steps respectively in the viral assembly
pathway and that rubella virus morphogenesis is very different from
that of the structurally similar alphaviruses.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Rubella virus (RV) is the sole
member of the genus Rubivirus within the family
Togaviridae. Humans are the only natural host for this
virus, which causes a mild childhood disease known as German measles
(Reviewed in references 8 and
56). The most serious medical consequences of RV
infection occur during the first trimester of pregnancy, in which case
in utero infection of the fetus often results in a collection of severe
malformations known as congenital rubella syndrome. Despite the wealth
of clinical and epidemiological information regarding RV, the biology
of this virus remains poorly understood. The study of RV has been
hampered in large part due to the inherent difficulties associated with growing the virus. Historically, it has been assumed that RV is very
similar if not identical with respect to replication and assembly to
the better-studied members of the togavirus family, namely,
alphaviruses. While it appears that RV and alphaviruses are similar in
many respects with regard to entry and replication in host cells
(31, 42), it has become clear that the assembly pathways of
rubiviruses and alphaviruses are quite different. Some differences of
note are that (i) RV generally buds from intracellular membranes, in
contrast to alphaviruses, which mature at the plasma membrane; (ii) RV
capsid protein does not possess an autoprotease activity (6,
39), whereas alphavirus capsid has a serine protease domain that
catalyzes its release from the structural protein precursor
(34); and (iii) RV nucleocapsid assembly occurs in
association with membranes and is synchronized with virus budding (8). Conversely, alphavirus nucleocapsid assembly occurs
independently of membranes and virus budding (reviewed in reference
50).
Rubella virions contain three structural proteins: a capsid protein
that complexes with 40S RNA to form a nucleocapsid and two
membrane-spanning glycoproteins, E2 and E1, located in the virus
envelope (38). The structural proteins are synthesized as a
110-kDa precursor polyprotein which is endoproteolytically cleaved to
produce capsid, E2, and E1 (39). E2 and E1 are type I
membrane proteins which have amino-terminal, independently functioning signal peptides that facilitate translocation into the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (17, 20). Capsid protein remains in the
cytoplasm in association with membranes and complexes with viral
genomic RNA to form nucleocapsids (51). E2 and E1 form a
heterodimer in the ER and are transported as a complex to the Golgi
apparatus, where they mediate intracellular budding (2, 22).
Our recent studies have focused upon how RV structural proteins and RNA
are assembled into virions. We have demonstrated that coordinated
expression of capsid, E2, and E1 proteins in mammalian cells results in
their assembly into rubella virus-like particles (RLPs)
(19). Since alphavirus assembly does not occur with any measurable efficiency in the absence of viral genome (52),
the process of genomic RNA-independent viral assembly is seemingly unique to RV among togaviruses. RLPs are very similar to native RV
virions in terms of morphology, antigenicity, and immunogenicity (11, 20, 44, 45). In addition, RLPs associate with the plasma membrane of host cells and are found in multivesicular bodies,
which indicates that they may be endocytosed in the same manner as
infectious virions (reference 19 and our unpublished observations). Thus, RLPs represent a suitable model system to study RV morphogenesis.
In the present study, we have investigated the role of the RV
glycoprotein domains in the assembly of RLPs. Our results indicate that
the transmembrane (TM) and cytoplasmic (CT) domains of E2 and E1 are
required for early and late steps, respectively, in the viral assembly
pathway. Furthermore, interaction between the CT domain of E1 and
capsid does not appear to be the major interaction which drives the
budding reaction as previously hypothesized (19). These
results indicate the assembly of RV virions differ significantly from
that of alphaviruses and may have implications for the design of
recombinant vaccines which use RV as a vector.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Reagents.
Reagents and supplies were from the following
sources. Protein A- and G-Sepharose were purchased from Pharmacia
(Alameda, Calif.). Fibronectin, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), dialyzed
fetal bovine serum, and bovine serum albumin were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, Mo.). Promix
[35S]methionine-cysteine (1,000 Ci/mmol) and
14C-labeled protein standards were purchased from Amersham
Corp. (Arlington Heights, Ill.). 32Pi (500 mCi/ml) and minimal essential medium (MEM) lacking cysteine and
methionine were purchased from ICN Biomedicals (Irvine, Calif.). OptiMEM serum-free medium, fetal bovine serum, and alpha-MEM without nucleosides were obtained from Life Technologies Inc. (Gaithersburg, Md.). DOSPER transfection reagent, Pefabloc, and Pwo
polymerase were purchased from Boehringer Mannheim Corporation (Laval,
Quebec, Canada). Immobilon-P PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride) membranes, 0.45-µm pore size, were purchased from Millipore Corporation
(Bedford, Mass.). Recombinant endoglycosidase (endo H) was purchased
from New England Biolabs (Beverly, Mass.).
Antibodies.
Monoclonal antibodies to RV structural proteins
were kindly provided by John Safford, Abbott Laboratories (North
Chicago, Ill.), Barbara Pustowoit, University of Leipzig (Leipzig,
Germany), and Jerry Wolinski, University of Texas (Houston, Tex.).
Human anti-RV was provided by Aubrey Tingle, University of British
Columbia (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). Rabbit anti-mannosidase II (Man II) was provided by Marilyn G. Farquhar, University of California, San Diego (La Jolla, Calif.). Goat anti-mouse
immunoglobulin G (IgG) conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (HRP) was
purchased from Bio-Rad Laboratories (Hercules, Calif.). Texas
red-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG and fluorescein
isothiocyanate-conjugated donkey anti-rabbit IgG (each double-labeling
grade) were purchased from and Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories
(West Grove, Pa.).
Recombinant plasmids.
All RV cDNA constructs were subcloned
into the expression vector pCMV5 (1) between the
EcoRI and HindIII or BamHI sites of the polylinker downstream from the cytomegalovirus promoter. TM
and/or CT domains of RV glycoproteins were deleted, altered, or
replaced with analogous domains from two other type I membrane glycoproteins, vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) G protein
(46) or CD8 (29), using PCR with Pwo
polymerase. Generally, 20 to 30 cycles were used for each reaction to
minimize the chances of introducing second-site mutations. All products
were verified by DNA sequencing. A schematic diagram of all the
constructs is shown in Fig. 1.

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Schematic of RV 24S expression constructs. The RV
sequences are shown as white, whereas VSV G and CD8 sequences are
indicated as black and gray, respectively. The signal peptide (SP) and
TM domains are indicated by thin rectangles at the beginnings and ends
of the E2 and E1 proteins. The 24S cDNA encodes normal capsid (C), E2,
and E1. The amino acid sequence of the E2 CT domain located between the
E2 TM and E1 signal peptide domains is shown below the construct.
Constructs are named to reflect the relevant changes to domains in E2
or E1. For example, 24SE1CT encodes normal capsid, E2,
and an E1 protein which is lacking the CT domain, and
24SE2-GTM encodes normal capsid, E1, and an E2 protein in
which the TM domain has been replaced by the analogous region from VSV
G protein. Sequences of the mutated E2 CT domains are shown below the
24SE2CT5R-5K and 24SE2CT3R-3A constructs. All
cDNA constructs were subcloned between the EcoRI and
BamHI or HindIII sites of pCMV5 and stably
transfected into CHO cells.
|
|
The 24S cDNA encodes the RV structural proteins in the order
NH
2-C-E2-E1-COOH (
5). The
24SE1
CT
cDNA encodes capsid-E2
and an E1 gene which
lacks the coding region for the 13-amino-acid
CT domain
(
19). In the 24SE1-G
TMCT cDNA, the coding
regions
for the E1 TM and CT domains were replaced by the analogous
regions
from the VSV G protein (
19). Similarly, in
24SE1-CD8
TMCT and
24SE1-CD8
TM, the
coding regions for E1 TM and CT domains or E1
TM domain were replaced
with those from CD8. In the 24SE2-G
TM cDNA, the E2 TM
domain was replaced with the TM domain from VSV
G. The coding region of
the E2 CT domain in 24SE2
CT5R-5K was mutagenized
such
that five arginine residues were changed to lysines, whereas
in
24SE2
CT3R-3A three arginines are replaced with three
alanines
(Fig.
1).
Cell culture and transfection.
CHODG44 cells were cultured
and stably transfected exactly as described elsewhere (21).
COS cells were transfected by the calcium phosphate method as described
elsewhere (48) and were used for metabolic labeling and
radioimmunoprecipitation 40 to 48 h posttransfection.
Metabolic labeling and radioimmunoprecipitation.
Biosynthetic labeling with 35S-amino acids,
radioimmunoprecipitation, and endo H digestion of RV proteins from
transfected cells have been described previously (22). To
examine phosphorylation of capsid protein, cells were first cultured
for 16 h with 32Pi (500 µCi/ml) in
phosphate-free medium. Cell lysis and immunoprecipitations were carried
out in the presence of phosphatase inhibitors (10 mM sodium
orthovanadate, 50 mM sodium fluoride, 50 mM tetrasodium pyrophosphate).
SDS-PAGE and autoradiography.
Proteins were separated by
SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) on 10%
polyacrylamide gels and processed for autoradiography or immunoblotting
(22) as described below.
Immunofluorescence microscopy.
Cells were grown on
fibronectin (10 µg/ml)-coated 12-mm-diameter glass coverslips, fixed
with methanol at
20°C, and processed for indirect
immunofluorescence as described elsewhere (21).
Immunoblotting and RLP secretion assay.
Secretion of RLPs
from transfected cells was assayed by immunoblotting 100,000 × g pellets prepared from clarified conditioned medium by
using a monoclonal antibody to capsid protein. Briefly, cells were
washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline, then fresh medium was
added, and incubation was continued at 37°C for various time periods
to allow secretion of RLPs. At specific time periods, the medium was
removed and centrifuged at 14,000 × g for 5 min to
remove cell-associated material. RLPs were recovered from the precleared medium by centrifugation at 100,000 × g for
60 min at 4°C in a TLS 55 rotor. The 100,000 × g
pellets were resuspended and boiled in 2× SDS-gel loading buffer,
followed by SDS-PAGE through 10% gels. The proteins were transferred
to a PVDF membrane (250 mA for 30 min), using a semidry blotting
apparatus (Tyler Research Instruments, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada).
Capsid protein was detected by sequential incubations with a mouse
anticapsid monoclonal antibody followed by HRP-conjugated
goat
anti-mouse antibody and enhanced chemiluminescence
(ECL).
Electron microscopy.
Cells grown on fibronectin-coated
12-mm-diameter coverslips were processed for electron microscopy
essentially as described elsewhere (15). Briefly, cells were
fixed in 1.5% glutaraldehyde-0.1 M cacodylate (pH 7.4) containing 5%
sucrose for 1 h at room temperature and then washed three times (5 min each) in cacodylate buffer. Samples were then postfixed with 1%
OsO4-0.05 M potassium ferricyanide-0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4)
for 1 h on ice and washed with water three times (5 min each).
Cells were dehydrated in a graded series of ethanol and embedded in
Epon. Sections were cut parallel to the coverslips, stained with 2%
uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and examined in a Philips model 410 electron microscope.
 |
RESULTS |
The E1 TM and CT domains are required for secretion of RLPs.
Our previous work indicated that the TM and/or CT domains of RV E1
glycoprotein were required for secretion of RLPs from transfected cells
(19). However, in that study it was not determined at which
step in the virus assembly pathway that these E1 domains were required.
The assembly of RV virions and RLPs can be divided into four parts: (i)
synthesis, translocation, and folding of structural proteins in the ER;
(ii) targeting of proteins to site of virus assembly (Golgi complex);
(iii) assembly of proteins into virus particles; and (iv) secretion of
virus particles into the extracellular space. We have recently
demonstrated that replacement of the E1 TM and CT domains with the
analogous regions from VSV G protein does not affect targeting of E2
and E1 to the Golgi complex (23). Based on our topological
model of the RV structural proteins, we predicted that the E1 CT domain
interacts with capsid protein to drive the assembly of viral particles
into the lumen of the Golgi complex (19). Consequently,
replacement or deletion of the E1 CT domain would abrogate the
formation of virus particles, possibly by affecting the recruitment of
capsid protein to the Golgi complex. Stably transfected CHO cells
expressing C, E2, and E1 proteins with deletions or replacements of the
TM and CT domains were constructed so that we could test this prediction.
We used a rapid and sensitive immunoblot assay to detect RLP secretion
from transfected cells. The RLPs were pelleted from
conditioned media
by centrifugation at 100,000 ×
g, and subjected
to
SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting using a monoclonal antibody to
capsid
protein as described above. We also monitored the phosphorylation
of
capsid protein to determine whether mutations in the viral
glycoproteins would affect this process. Capsid protein was readily
detected in the media of CHO24S cells (Fig.
2A, lane 1). In contrast,
deletion of the
CT domain or replacement of the TM and/or CT domains
of E1 with
analogous domains from two other type I membrane glycoproteins,
VSV G and CD8, completely abrogated secretion of RLPs into the
medium
(Fig.
2A, lanes 2 to 4) but did not affect the phosphorylation
of
capsid protein (Fig.
2B).

View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Mutations in the E2 and E1 TM and CT domains abrogate
RLP secretion but not phosphorylation of capsid protein. (A) Medium
from CHO cells stably expressing various RV 24S constructs was
harvested after 3 h, and RLPs were pelleted by centrifugation at
100,000 × g. The RLPs and cell lysates were subjected
to SDS-PAGE on 10% gels and transferred to PVDF membranes. Membranes
were probed with mouse anticapsid, followed by probing with goat
anti-mouse IgG conjugated to HRP and ECL detection. The gel containing
the secreted capsid proteins was run longer to show that capsid protein
migrates as a doublet. Identical results were obtained when medium was
harvested at 6 h (not shown). (B) CHO cells were labeled for
16 h with 32Pi. Cell lysates and media
were subjected to radioimmunoprecipitation with human anti-RV serum and
protein A-Sepharose followed by SDS-PAGE and fluorography.
|
|
These experiments confirm our previous observations that E1 TM and CT
domains are required for secretion of RLPs (
19). E2
and E1
were also detected in the cell lysates and media from CHO24S
cells by
immunoblotting during these time periods but not in the
media from
cells expressing 24S cDNAs with altered E1 TM and/or
CT domains (not
shown). All of the transfected CHO cells were
subjected to analysis
by biosynthetic labeling with
[
35S]methionine-cysteine and radioimmunoprecipitation
using anti-RV
sera. These experiments also demonstrated that capsid,
E2, and
E1 were secreted in a time-dependent manner from CHO24S cells
but not CHO24SE1
CT
, 24SE1-G
TMCT, or
24SE1-CD8
TM cells (not
shown).
The E1 TM and CT domains are not required for targeting of RV
proteins to the Golgi complex.
We next sought to determine at
which point in the particle assembly pathway the E1 TM and CT domains
were required. Biosynthetic labeling and radioimmunoprecipitation of RV
antigens from the transfected CHO cells indicated that replacement of
the E1 TM and CT domains did not affect the processing and
translocation of RV structural proteins (not shown). Therefore, the
block in RLP secretion must occur at a later stage in the assembly
pathway. The intracellular localization of RV structural proteins was
examined by double-label indirect immunofluorescence using monoclonal
antibodies to RV structural proteins and a rabbit antibody to the Golgi
membrane protein, Man II (53). Consistent with our previous
studies, all three of the RV structural proteins were concentrated in
the Golgi region of CHO24S cells (Fig.
3).

View larger version (69K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
RV structural proteins are concentrated in the Golgi
complex. CHO24S cells grown on coverslips were fixed with methanol and
processed for double-label indirect immunofluorescence using mouse
anticapsid (A), mouse anti-E2 (C), or mouse anti-E1 (E) and rabbit
anti-Man II to stain the Golgi complex (B, D, and F). Bar = 10 µm.
|
|
Replacement of the TM domain or both the TM and CT domains of E1 did
not affect targeting of E1 to the Golgi complex (Fig.
4C, D, G, and H).
Unexpectedly, capsid protein was also concentrated
in the Golgi region
of these cells (Fig.
4A, B, E, and F),
indicating
that the TM and/or CT domains of E1 were not required for
targeting
of capsid to the Golgi complex. In all of the cell lines
described
above, the intracellular distribution of E2 was
indistinguishable
from E1 in that it localized to the Golgi complex
(not shown).
Similarly, stably transfected cells expressing a 24S
mutant in
which both the E1 TM and CT domains were replaced by the
analogous
domains from CD8 (24SE1-CD8
TMCT) or the CT domain
of E1 had been
deleted (24SE1
CT
) showed characteristics
essentially identical
to those shown in Fig.
4 with regard to
localization of the RV
proteins (not shown).

View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
The E1 TM and CT domains are not required for targeting
of RV structural proteins to the Golgi complex.
CHO24SE1-GTMCT (A to D) and 24SE1-CD8TM (E to
H) cells were processed for indirect immunofluorescence using mouse
antibodies to capsid (A and E) or E1 (C and G) and rabbit anti-Man II
(B, D, F, and H). Colocalization between RV structural proteins and the
Golgi marker Man II are indicated by arrows. In all cases, E2 showed a
distribution similar to that of E1 (not shown). Some of the cells have
diminished expression of RV structural proteins (E and G, asterisks).
Bar = 10 µm.
|
|
Our recent work demonstrated that the TM and CT domains of E1 comprise
an ER retention signal which we believe functions to
delay the
transport of the E2/E1 heterodimer from the ER to the
Golgi complex
until the folding of E1 is completed (
14). Accordingly,
we
predicted that replacement of these E1 domains would result
in more
rapid transport of E2 and E1 from the ER. To test this
hypothesis, we
conducted biosynthetic labeling experiments with
stably transfected CHO
cells expressing normal E2 and E1 or E2
and E1-G
TMCT
(
22,
23). The heterogeneous nature of mature
E2, which
migrates as a 42- to 47-kDa smear, made it difficult
to accurately
quantitate the rate of ER to Golgi transport for
this glycoprotein;
therefore, only the rate of ER to Golgi transport
of E1 was determined.
After 80 min, more than ~51% of E1-G
TMCT was resistant
to endo H, whereas at the same time point, <30%
of E1 had been
converted to the endo H-resistant form (Fig.
5).
From these results, we conclude that
the E1 TM and CT domains
are not required for targeting of E2, E1, or
capsid protein to
the site of virus budding, the Golgi complex, but
they serve to
delay transport of the E2/E1 heterodimer from the ER.

View larger version (67K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
The E1 TM and CT domains delay transport of E1 to the
Golgi complex. Stably transfected CHO cells expressing E2 and E1 or E2
and E1-GTMCT were pulse-labeled with
[35S]Met-cys for 10 min and chased for various time
periods in the absence of radioactivity before lysis and
immunoprecipitation with human anti-RV serum. The
radioimmunoprecipitates were incubated with or without endo H,
separated on 10% gels, and processed for autoradiography as described
in the text. Endo H-resistant (asterisks) and -sensitive (arrowheads)
forms of E1 and E1-GTMCT are indicated. Sizes are indicated
in kilodaltons.
|
|
The E2 TM and CT domains are important for assembly of the E2/E1
heterodimer and transport of the structural proteins to the Golgi
complex.
The E2 TM domain contains a Golgi retention signal which
is thought to mediate intracellular budding of rubella virions into the
lumen of this organelle (23). To assess the importance of this domain for RV particle assembly, the E2 TM was replaced with the
TM region from VSV G protein as described elsewhere (23). The cDNA encoding E2-GTM was subcloned into the 24S cDNA
for expression in stably transfected CHO cells. As shown in Fig. 2A
(lane 5), capsid protein was detected in the cell lysates of
CHO24SE2-GTM cells but not the medium, indicating that RLPs
were not secreted from these cells. Examination of these cells by
indirect immunofluorescence revealed that none of the RV structural
proteins were present in the Golgi complex (Fig.
6A, C, and E). Capsid protein was
localized throughout the cytoplasm but was not detected in association
with the Golgi complex (Fig. 6A and B). E2-GTM was
distributed throughout a cytoplasmic reticular network and the nuclear
envelope, indicating that this glycoprotein resided in the ER (Fig. 6C
and D). Some E1 was also detected in the ER, but the highest
concentrations of this protein were found in discrete perinuclear
membrane structures (Fig. 6E). Examination of CHO24SE2-GTM
cells by electron microscopy revealed the presence of ER-derived smooth
tubular membrane nests (see Fig. 10) similar to those found in cells
expressing E1 alone (15, 21). Since E2-GTM was
not detected in these structures, it is quite likely that E1 and
E2-GTM do not associate to form a heterodimer.

View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
The E2 TM and CT domains are important for targeting of
RV structural proteins to the Golgi complex. CHO24SE2-GTM
(A to F) and CHO24SE2CT3R-3A (G to L) cells were processed
for indirect immunofluorescence using mouse antibodies to capsid (A and
G), E2 (C and I), E1 (E and K), and rabbit anti-Man II (B, D, F, H, J,
L). In CHO24SE2-GTM cells, E1 is concentrated in
perinuclear membrane structures (E, arrowheads). Colocalization between
RV structural proteins and the Golgi marker Man II are indicated by
arrows (K and L). Some of the cells have diminished expression of RV
structural proteins (A, C, E, and G, asterisks). Bar = 10 µm.
|
|
RV capsid has been reported to undergo phosphorylation (
32),
but it is unknown which enzyme(s) catalyzes this posttranslational
modification or where this occurs. Using the Prosite algorithm,
we
determined that this protein contains two potential protein
kinase C
phosphorylation sites. Interestingly, the eta and epsilon
isoforms of
protein kinase C have been localized to the ER and
Golgi complex,
respectively (
4,
28). We took advantage of
the fact that two
of the 24S mutants resulted in failure of capsid
to localize to the
Golgi complex to determine whether phosphorylation
of capsid protein
required proper targeting to the viral budding
site. Cell lines were
labeled with
32P
i, and RV proteins were
immunoprecipitated and subjected to SDS-PAGE
and fluorography.
Phosphorylation of capsid protein was not dependent
on its localization
to the Golgi complex or incorporation into
virus particles, since
cell-associated capsid efficiently incorporated
32P
i in all of the 24S mutants (Fig.
2B).
The predicted CT domain of E2 is a loop of seven amino acids, five of
which are arginines (Fig.
1). This domain is likely
to be closely
associated with the negatively charged phospholipid
head groups of
cell membranes. To determine if the arginines rather
than the overall
charge of this domain are important for virus
assembly, we changed the
five arginines to five lysines by site-directed
mutagenesis. The
resulting construct, 24SE2
CT5R-5K (Fig.
1), was
stably
expressed in CHO cells and subjected to analysis as described
above. Indirect immunofluorescence analysis revealed that in
CHO24SE2
CT5R-5K
cells, all of the RV structural proteins
were correctly targeted
to the Golgi complex (not shown). Moreover, the
capacity for these
cells to assemble and secrete RLPs was not
noticeably altered
(Fig.
2A, lane 6). We also changed the three
internal arginine
residues to alanines to generate the construct
24SE2
CT3R-3A (Fig.
1). The two flanking arginine residues
were not changed, as they
may be important for the overall topology of
the E2 TM and E1
signal peptide domains within the membrane
(
55). Capsid was
not detected in the media of
CHO24SE2
CT3R-3A cells, indicating
that RLP secretion was
abrogated by these mutations (Fig.
2A,
lane 7). Unexpectedly, these
changes to the E2 CT domain also
affected the targeting of RV
structural proteins in transfected
cells. Capsid protein was not
associated with the Golgi complex
but instead was distributed
throughout the cytoplasm in punctate
structures (Fig.
6G and H). E1 was
present in the Golgi complex,
whereas E2
CT3R-3A was
distributed throughout the ER (Fig.
6I to
L). We were puzzled by this
result since our previous work indicated
that E2 and E1 must form a
complex before E1 can be transported
efficiently to the Golgi complex
(
16,
21).
Very little colocalization was observed between E1 and
E2-G
TM or E2
CT3R-3A, suggesting that mutations
in the E2 TM and CT
domains may affect the assembly of the E2/E1
heterodimer. To address
this possibility, we performed
coimmunoprecipitation experiments
to assay the dimerization of E2 and
E1 as described elsewhere
(
22). Since the expression levels
of the stably transfected
cell lines varied, the experiments were
conducted in transiently
transfected COS cells to ensure more uniform
expression levels.
Transfected cells were pulse-labeled with
[
35S]Cys-Met and chased for 30 min to allow dimerization
of E2 and
E1 to occur in the ER. Lysates were divided into two aliquots
which were incubated with human anti-RV serum to precipitate all
three
RV proteins (Fig.
7, lanes 1 to 6) or a
monoclonal antibody
to E1 (lanes 7 to 12). E2 did not
coimmunoprecipitate with E1
in cells expressing 24SE2-G
TM
or 24SE2
CT3R-3A (lanes 11 and 12)
even though E2 was
clearly present in these cells (lanes 5 and
6). Conversely, alterations
in the E1 TM and/or CT domains did
not significantly affect the binding
of E1 to E2 (lanes 7 to 9).
Two species of E2 coprecipitated with E1
under these conditions.
The 42-kDa form of E2 is thought to represent a
Golgi-processed
form of the glycoprotein that contains O-linked
carbohydrates
(
18,
30). Since E2 is not efficiently
transported from the
ER unless it is bound to E1, only the 39-kDa ER
form of E2 is
present in cells expressing 24SE2-G
TM or
24SE2
CT3R-3A (lanes 5
and 6). These results indicate the E2
TM and CT domains are important
for dimerization with E1 and its
subsequent transport to the Golgi
complex.

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 7.
The E2 TM and CT domains are important for assembly of
the E2/E1 heterodimer. COS cells were transfected with plasmids
encoding wild-type RV 24S cDNA or various 24S mutants encoding altered
E1 or E2 glycoproteins. Forty hours posttransfection, cells were
pulse-labeled for 15 min with [35S]Met-Cys and chased for
30 min in the absence of radioactivity. Cell lysates were divided into
two aliquots which were immunoprecipitated with human anti-RV serum
(lanes 1 to 6) or a mouse monoclonal antibody to E1 (lanes 7 to 12).
Samples were then subjected to SDS-PAGE on 10% gels followed by
fluorography. The positions of capsid, E2, and E1 are indicated. The
species of E2 that migrates at 42 kDa (asterisk) represents the Golgi
processed form of E2 that contains O-linked sugars. The 39-kDa form of
E2 (arrow) represents the ER form of the glycoprotein.
|
|
The E1 CT domain is not required for assembly of RLPs.
When
CHO24S cells were examined by electron microscopy, RLPs could be seen
in various stages of assembly and budding into the lumen of the Golgi
complex (reference 19 and Fig.
8). RLPs were not detected in the Golgi
complex of untransfected CHODG44 cells (Fig. 8). The RLPs are similar
in size and appearance to native rubella virions (reviewed in
references 8 and 56) in that they
are 50 to 60 nm in diameter and have a ~30-nm electron-dense core
(Fig. 8). The CHO24S cells expressing mutant E2 or E1 glycoproteins were subjected to analysis by electron microscopy to determine if RLPs
were formed but not secreted. Unexpectedly, RLPs were present in the
Golgi complex of both CHO24SE1CT
and
CHO24SE1-GTMCT cells (Fig.
9). These particles were
indistinguishable from the RLPs found in CHO24S cells (Fig. 8)
and were found only in the Golgi complex or associated vacuoles. As
expected, RLPs were also found in the Golgi complex of
CHO24SE2CT5R-5K cells (Fig.
10). Mutations in E2 which affected
targeting of one or more of the RV structural proteins to the Golgi
also blocked the formation of intracellular RLPs. Specifically, RLPs
were not found in the Golgi complex or any other intracellular membrane
structures of CHO24SE2-GTM and CHO24SE2CT-3R-3A
cells (not shown). However, in CHO24SE2-GTM cells, but not
in cells expressing other 24S mutants, nests of smooth tubular
membranes were evident in the cytoplasm (Fig. 10). We assume that these
tubular networks are the same E1-containing perinuclear foci shown in
Fig. 6E. In previous studies, we determined that these ER-derived
structures proliferate when E1 fails to assemble with E2 (15,
21). These results indicate that assembly of RLPs requires
targeting of all three RV structural proteins to the Golgi complex.

View larger version (220K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 8.
RLPs bud into the Golgi complex of CHO 24S cells. CHO24S
and untransfected CHODG44 cells were prepared for routine morphology by
embedding in Epon, and ultrathin sections were examined by electron
microscopy. RLPs (arrowheads) can be seen in the lumen of stacked Golgi
cisterna (G) of CHO24S cells but not in untransfected CHODG44 cells.
Bars = 0.1 µm.
|
|

View larger version (170K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 9.
The E1 CT domain is not required for assembly of RLPs in
the Golgi complex. CHO24SE1CT and
CHO24SE1-GTMCT cells were prepared for routine morphology
by embedding in Epon, and ultrathin sections were examined by electron
microscopy. RLPs (arrowheads) can been seen in the lumen of stacked
Golgi cisterna (G) of both cell types. A clathrin-coated vesicle in the
vicinity of the Golgi complex is indicated by an arrow. Bars = 0.1 µm.
|
|

View larger version (217K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 10.
The E2 TM domain is required for formation of RLPs.
CHO24SE2CT5R-5K and CHO24SE2-GTM cells were
prepared for routine morphology by embedding in Epon, and ultrathin
sections were examined by electron microscopy. RLPs (arrowheads) can be
seen in the lumen of Golgi cisterna (G) of in
CHO24SE2CT5R-5K cells but not in CHO24SE2-GTM
cells. In the latter cell type, networks of smooth tubular membranes
(TN) were also evident in the cytoplasm. Bars = 0.1 µm.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The use of virus-like particles as models has provided a wealth of
information about the assembly and replication pathways of many viruses
(7, 9, 10, 12, 25-27, 35, 49, 54). Similarly, we reasoned
that RLPs could serve as a faithful model system to examine the
assembly of rubella virions. In this study we have investigated the
role of the RV glycoprotein domains in the assembly of virus-like
particles. Our results indicate that the E2 and E1 TM and CT domains
function at different stages of the assembly pathway. Ultimately, these
findings may have implications for design of recombinant live vaccines
using RV as the vector.
The E2 TM and CT domains are required for early events in virus
assembly.
We have recently determined that the TM domain of E2
contains a Golgi retention signal which may facilitate the process of intracellular budding (23). The E1 TM and CT domains are not required for retention of E2 and E1 in the Golgi complex, which suggests that the E2 TM domain is the major factor that determines where virus assembly takes place. We reasoned that substituting this
domain with the analogous region from a type I plasma membrane protein
such as VSV G may shift the site of virus assembly from the Golgi
complex to the cell surface. Instead, replacement of the E2 TM domain
resulted in failure of the RV structural proteins to be transported to
the Golgi complex. Introduction of nonconservative mutations in the CT
domain had much the same effect except that a substantial fraction of
E1 was transported to the Golgi without E2. The significance of this
observation remains to be determined since we have never before
observed efficient transport of E1 to the Golgi without E2. It is
possible, however, that E1 and E2CT3R-3A dimers are
unstable but still able to be transported to the ER-Golgi
intermediate compartment (ERGIC), where they dissociate. ERGIC is
a sorting station which receives cargo from the ER and directs proteins
and lipids forward to the Golgi stack or back to the ER
(13). If dissociation does occur in ERGIC, E1 would proceed
to the Golgi whereas E2CT3R-3A would be returned to the ER.
The fact that E1 is retained in the Golgi complex suggests that this
glycoprotein may also contain a retention signal that prevents
transport to the plasma membrane.
From this study and our previous work (
16), it is now clear
that the RV E2 glycoprotein functions early in the viral assembly
pathway. We have proposed that E2 acts a scaffold which binds
newly
synthesized E1 molecules in order to facilitate the maturation
of this
glycoprotein (
22). Accordingly, mutations in the TM
and/or
CT domain of E2 may affect its ability to bind to E1 or
act as a
scaffold.
The E1 TM and CT domains are not required for particle assembly but
are necessary for secretion.
In contrast to E2 mutants,
replacement of the E1 TM and CT domains had no apparent effect on
localization of capsid, E2, and E1 to the Golgi complex. Moreover,
these domains were not required for the budding of RLPs into this
organelle. This unexpected finding is not consistent with our earlier
hypothesis that the E1 CT domain mediates the interaction between the
glycoprotein spike complex and capsid protein to drive assembly
(19). Although RLPs are formed and released into the lumen
of the Golgi in the absence of the E1 TM and CT domains, they were not
secreted into the medium. Thus, these E1 domains are critical for
transport of virus particles between the Golgi and the cell surface.
Since the TM and CT domains of E1 are predicted to reside within the
RLP envelope and interior, respectively, it is unlikely that they could
facilitate this process directly. Rather, we favor the hypothesis that
alteration of these domains results in a conformational change in the
ectodomain of E1 which affects the quaternary structure of the E2/E1
glycoprotein spike. In turn, the putative alterations in the E1
ectodomain could be due to direct or indirect effects. For example, if
specific interactions between the E2 and E1 TM domains occur during
heterodimer formation, replacement of the E1 TM domain could ultimately
affect the quaternary structure of the E2/E1 complex. An alternative, but not mutually exclusive possibility is that the E1 TM and CT domains
are needed to delay the transport of the E2/E1 dimer from the ER until
complete maturation of E1 occurs (14). Presumably, delaying
E2 and E1 in the ER serves to increase the time required for
interaction with lumenal chaperones such as Bip and calnexin, thereby
increasing the folding efficiency of these proteins (3). Thus, in the absence of the E1 ER retention signal, the E2/E1 heterodimer is transported to the Golgi at a higher rate, possibly before maturation of E1 and/or E2 is completed.
Although most aberrantly folded proteins are retained in the ER
(
47), there is mounting evidence that the Golgi complex
also
has a mechanism to prevent abnormal proteins from reaching
the cell
surface (
36). Moreover, transport of proteins from
the Golgi
complex to the plasma membrane may require the presence
of positive
sorting signals that serve to concentrate cargo into
exocytic vesicles
(
37). The presence of altered or denatured
E2/E1
glycoprotein spikes on the surface of RLPs could result
in failure of
the virus particles to be transported to the cell
surface by either of
these
mechanisms.
The mechanism of RV assembly.
An important question that
arises from this study is, what are the important interactions that
drive RV assembly? It is now clear that interactions between the E1 CT
domain and capsid protein are not required for intracellular budding.
This leaves a number of possibilities which can ultimately be tested by
using the RLP system and/or the RV infectious clone (43). By
analogy with alphaviruses (24, 40), binding of the capsid
protein to the E2 CT domain could potentially mediate the assembly of
virus particles. Our results indicate that it is the net positive
charge in the E2 CT domain which is critical for function, rather than
the arginine residues per se; therefore, unlike the case for
alphaviruses, these interactions would most likely involve
electrostatic binding between the arginine residues in the E2 CT domain
and acidic residues in capsid protein. Interestingly, there are two
closely spaced clusters (positions 143 to 151 and 183 to 189) of
aspartic acid and glutamic acid residues in capsid protein that could
potentially bind to the arginine residues in the E2 CT domain.
Additional interactions between the hydrophobic carboxy terminus of
capsid protein and other transmembrane segments of E2 and/or E1 cannot be ruled out at this point. The E2 signal peptide is not cleaved from
the carboxy terminus of capsid, and therefore this protein remains
membrane associated (51). Consequently, hydrophobic interactions between the E2 signal peptide and the TM domain of E2
within the plane of the Golgi membrane could augment electrostatic interactions between E2 and capsid during particle assembly.
Another possibility is that RV budding is the result of a "push and
pull" mechanism which has been proposed for rhabdoviruses
(
33). This model holds that extrusion of virus components
from
host cells is effected by the independent but synergistic effects
of pushing and pulling forces mediated by cytoplasmic proteins
(capsid
and/or matrix proteins) and transmembrane glycoproteins,
respectively.
Retrovirus Gag precursors are able to form virus-like
particles in the
absence of envelope glycoproteins by pushing
the host cell membranes
enough to cause budding (
7,
9).
Although an interaction
between the matrix protein and envelope
glycoprotein is not absolutely
required to drive the budding,
it does increase the efficiency of this
process 30-fold (
33).
Presumably, interactions between the
CT domain of virus envelope
glycoproteins and cytoplasmic viral
components are required for
fidelity or specificity (
41). We
are now in the process of testing
whether the TM and CT domains of E2
and E1 can direct the incorporation
of non-RV membrane proteins into
virus
particles.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We acknowledge Margaret Hughes for excellent technical
assistance. We are grateful to J. Safford, J. Wolinsky, B. Pusowoit, M. Farquhar, and A. Tingle for gifts of antibodies.
This work was supported by grants to T.C.H. from the Alberta Heritage
Foundation for Medical Research and the Medical Research Council of
Canada. T.C.H. is a scholar of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for
Medical Research and the Medical Research Council of Canada.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Cell Biology and Anatomy, University of Alberta, 5-14 Medical Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H7, Canada. Phone: (780) 492-6485. Fax: (780) 492-0450. E-mail:
thobman{at}anat.med.ualberta.ca.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Andersson, S.,
D. L. Davis,
H. Dahlback,
H. Jornvall, and D. W. Russell.
1989.
Cloning, structure, and expression of the mitochondrial cytochrome P-450 sterol 26-hydroxylase, a bile acid biosynthetic enzyme.
J. Biol. Chem.
264:8222-8229[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Baron, M. D., and K. Forsell.
1991.
Oligomerisation of the structural proteins of rubella virus.
Virology
185:811-819[Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Bergeron, J. J. M.,
M. B. Brenner,
D. Y. Thomas, and D. B. Williams.
1994.
Calnexin: a membrane-bound chaperone of the endoplasmic reticulum.
Trends Biochem. Sci.
19:124-128[Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Chida, K.,
H. Sagara,
Y. Suzuki,
A. Murakami,
S. Osada,
S. Ohno,
K. Hirosawa, and T. Kuroki.
1994.
The eta isoform of protein kinase C is localized on rough endoplasmic reticulum.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
14:3782-3790[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Clarke, D. M.,
T. W. Loo,
I. Hui,
P. Chong, and S. Gillam.
1987.
Nucleotide sequence and in vitro expression of rubella virus 24S subgenomic mRNA encoding the structural proteins E1, E2 and C.
Nucleic Acids Res.
15:3041-3057[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 6.
|
Clarke, D. M.,
T. W. Loo,
H. McDonald, and S. Gillam.
1988.
Expression of rubella virus cDNA coding for the structural proteins.
Gene
65:23-30[Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Delchambre, M.,
D. Gheysen,
D. Thines,
C. Thiriart,
E. Jacobs,
E. Verdin,
M. Horth,
A. Burny, and F. Bex.
1989.
The GAG precursor of simian immunodeficiency virus assembles into virus-like particles.
EMBO J.
8:2653-2660[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Frey, T. K.
1994.
Molecular biology of rubella virus.
Adv. Virus Res.
44:69-160[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Gheysen, D.,
E. Jacobs,
F. de Foresta,
C. Thiriart,
M. Francotte,
D. Thines, and M. De Wilde.
1989.
Assembly and release of HIV-1 precursor Pr55gag virus-like particles from recombinant baculovirus-infected insect cells.
Cell
59:103-112[Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Gonzalez, S. A.,
J. L. Affranchino,
G. H. R., and A. Burny.
1993.
Assembly of the matrix protein of simian immunodeficiency virus into virus-like particles.
Virology
194:548-556[Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Grangeot-Keros, L.,
B. Pustowoit, and T. C. Hobman.
1995.
Evaluation of Cobas Core Rubella IgG E1A recomb, a new enzyme immunoassay based on recombinant rubella-like particles.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:2392-2394[Abstract].
|
| 12.
|
Haffar, O.,
J. Garrigues,
B. Travis,
P. Moran,
J. Zarling, and S.-L. Hu.
1990.
Human immunodeficiency virus-like, nonreplicating gag-env particles assemble in a recombinant vaccinia virus expression system.
J. Virol.
64:2653-2659[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 13.
|
Hauri, H.-P., and A. Schweizer.
1992.
The endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi intermediate compartment.
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
4:600-608[Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Hobman, T.,
H. Lemon, and K. Jewell.
1997.
Characterization of an endoplasmic reticulum retention signal in the rubella virus E1 glycoprotein.
J. Virol.
71:7670-7680[Abstract].
|
| 15.
|
Hobman, T.,
B. Zhao,
H. Chan, and M. Farquhar.
1998.
Immunoisolation and characterization of a subdomain of the endoplasmic reticulum that concentrates proteins involved in COPII vesicle biogenesis.
Mol. Biol. Cell
9:1265-1278[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Hobman, T. C.
1993.
Transport of viral glycoproteins into the Golgi complex.
Trends Microbiol.
1:124-130[Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Hobman, T. C., and S. Gillam.
1989.
In vitro and in vivo expression of rubella virus E2 glycoprotein: the signal peptide is located in the C-terminal region of capsid protein.
Virology
173:241-250[Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Hobman, T. C.,
M. L. Lundstrom, and S. Gillam.
1990.
Processing and transport of rubella virus structural proteins in COS cells.
Virology
178:122-133[Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Hobman, T. C.,
M. L. Lundstrom,
C. A. Mauracher,
L. Woodward,
S. Gillam, and M. G. Farquhar.
1994.
Assembly of rubella virus structural proteins into virus-like particles in transfected cells.
Virology
202:574-585[Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Hobman, T. C.,
R. Shukin, and S. Gillam.
1988.
Translocation of rubella virus glycoprotein E1 into the endoplasmic reticulum.
J. Virol.
62:4259-4264[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Hobman, T. C.,
L. Woodward, and M. G. Farquhar.
1992.
The rubella virus E1 glycoprotein is arrested in a novel post-ER, pre-Golgi compartment.
J. Cell Biol.
118:795-811[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 22.
|
Hobman, T. C.,
L. Woodward, and M. G. Farquhar.
1993.
The rubella virus E2 and E1 spike glycoproteins are targeted to the Golgi complex.
J. Cell Biol.
121:269-281[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 23.
|
Hobman, T. C.,
L. Woodward, and M. G. Farquhar.
1995.
Targeting of a heterodimeric membrane protein complex to the Golgi: rubella virus E2 glycoprotein contains a transmembrane Golgi retention signal.
Mol. Biol. Cell
6:7-20[Abstract].
|
| 24.
|
Kail, M.,
M. Hollinshead,
W. Ansorge,
R. Pepperkok,
R. Frank,
G. Griffiths, and D. Vaux.
1991.
The cytoplasmic domain of alphavirus E2 glycoprotein contains a short linear recognition signal required for viral budding.
EMBO J.
10:2343-2351[Medline].
|
| 25.
|
Karacostas, V.,
K. Nagashima,
M. A. Gonda, and B. Moss.
1989.
Human immunodeficiency virus-like particles produced by a vaccinia virus expression vector.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
86:8964-8967[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
Kirnbauer, R.,
J. Taub,
H. Greenstone,
R. Roden,
M. Durst,
L. Gissmann,
D. R. Lowy, and J. T. Schiller.
1993.
Efficient self-assembly of human papillomavirus type 16 L1 and L1-L2 into virus-like particles.
J. Virol.
67:6929-6936[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 27.
|
Krausslich, H.-G.,
C. Ochsenbauer,
A.-M. Traenckner,
K. Mergener,
M. Facke,
H. R. Gelderblom, and V. Bosch.
1993.
Analysis of protein expression and virus-like particle formation in mammalian cell stably expressing HIV-1 gag and env gene products with or without active HIV protease.
Virology
192:605-617[Medline].
|
| 28.
|
Lehel, C.,
Z. Olah,
G. Jakak, and W. B. Anderson.
1995.
Protein kinase C is localized to the Golgi via its zinc-finger domain and modulates Golgi function.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
92:1406-1410[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 29.
|
Littman, D. R.,
Y. Thomas,
P. J. Maddon,
L. Chess, and R. Axel.
1985.
The isolation and sequence of the gene encoding T8: a molecule defining functional classes of T lymphocytes.
Cell
40:237-246[Medline].
|
| 30.
|
Lundstrom, M. L.,
C. A. Mauracher, and A. J. Tingle.
1991.
Characterization of carbohydrates linked to rubella virus glycoprotein E2.
J. Gen. Virol.
72:843-850[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 31.
|
Magliano, D.,
J. Marshall,
B. D. S. Bowden,
N. Vardaxis,
J. Meanger, and J.-Y. Lee.
1998.
Rubella virus replication complexes are virus-modified lysosomes.
Virology
240:57-63[Medline].
|
| 32.
|
Marr, L. D.,
A. Sanchez, and T. K. Frey.
1991.
Efficient in vitro translation and processing of the rubella virus structural proteins in the presence of microsomes.
Virology
180:400-405[Medline].
|
| 33.
|
Mebatsion, T.,
M. Konig, and K.-K. Conzelmann.
1996.
Budding of rabies virus particles in the absence of the spike glycoprotein.
Cell
84:941-951[Medline].
|
| 34.
|
Melancon, P., and H. Garoff.
1987.
Processing of the Semliki Forest virus structural polyprotein: role of the capsid protease.
J. Virol.
61:1301-1309[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 35.
|
Mergener, K.,
M. Facke,
R. Welker,
V. Brinkmann,
H. R. Gelderblom, and H.-G. Krausslich.
1993.
Analysis of HIV particle formation using transient expression of subviral constructs in mammalian cells.
Virology
186:25-39.
|
| 36.
|
Moolenaar, C.,
J. Ouwendijk,
M. Wittpoth,
H. Wisselaar,
H.-P. Hauri,
L. Ginsel,
H. Naim, and J. Fransen.
1997.
A mutation in the highly conserved region in brush-border sucrase-isomaltase and lysosomal -glucosidase results in Golgi retention.
J. Cell Sci.
110:557-567[Abstract].
|
| 37.
|
Munro, S.
1998.
Localization of proteins to the Golgi complex.
Trends Cell Biol.
8:11-15.
[Medline] |
| 38.
|
Oker-Blom, C.,
N. Kalkkinen,
L. Kaariainen, and R. F. Pettersson.
1983.
Rubella virus contains one capsid protein and three envelope glycoproteins, E1, E2a, and E2b.
J. Virol.
46:964-973[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 39.
|
Oker-Blom, C.,
I. Ulmanen,
L. Kaariainen, and R. F. Pettersson.
1984.
Rubella virus 40S genome RNA specifies a 24S subgenomic RNA that codes for a precursor to structural proteins.
J. Virol.
49:403-408[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 40.
|
Owen, K. E., and R. J. Kuhn.
1997.
Alphavirus budding is dependent upon the interaction between the nucleocapsid and hydrophobic amino acids on the cytoplasmic domain of E2 envelope glycoprotein.
Virology
230:187-196[Medline].
|
| 41.
|
Owens, R., and J. K. Rose.
1993.
Cytoplasmic domain requirements for incorporation of a foreign envelope protein into vesicular stomatitis virus.
J. Virol.
67:360-365[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 42.
|
Petruzziello, R.,
N. Orsi,
S. Macchia,
S. Rieti,
T. Frey, and P. Mastromarino.
1996.
Pathway of rubella virus infectious entry into Vero cells.
J. Gen. Virol.
77:303-308[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 43.
|
Pugachev, K. V., and T. K. Frey.
1996.
Improvement of the infectivity of the rubella virus infectious clone: mutagenesis of the 5' noncoding region of the virus, p. 99.
American Society for Virology, London, Ontario, Canada.
|
| 44.
|
Pustowoit, B.,
L. Grangeot-Keros,
T. C. Hobman, and J. Hofmann.
1996.
Evaluation of recombinant rubella-like particles in a commercial immunoassay for the detection of anti-rubella IgG.
Clin. Diagn. Virol.
5:13-30[Medline].
|
| 45.
|
Qiu, Z.,
D. Ou,
H. Wu,
T. C. Hobman, and S. Gillam.
1994.
Expression and characterization of virus-like particles containing rubella virus structural proteins.
J. Virol.
68:4086-4091[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 46.
|
Rose, J. K., and J. E. Bergmann.
1982.
Expression from cloned cDNA of cell-surface secreted forms of the glycoprotein of vesicular stomatitis virus in eukaryotic cells.
Cell
30:753-762[Medline].
|
| 47.
|
Rose, J. K., and R. W. Doms.
1988.
Regulation of protein export from the endoplasmic reticulum.
Annu. Rev. Cell Biol.
4:257-288.
|
| 48.
|
Sambrook, J.,
E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis.
1989.
Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.
|
| 49.
|
Schalich, J.,
S. L. Allison,
K. Stiasny,
C. W. Mandl,
C. Kunz, and F. W. Heinz.
1996.
Recombinant subviral particles from tick-borne encephalitis virus are fusogenic and provide a model system for studying flavivirus envelope glycoprotein functions.
J. Virol.
70:4549-4557[Abstract].
|
| 50.
|
Strauss, J. H., and E. G. Strauss.
1994.
The alphaviruses: gene expression, replication, and evolution.
Microbiol. Rev.
58:491-562[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 51.
|
Suomalainen, M.,
H. Garoff, and M. D. Baron.
1990.
The E2 signal sequence of rubella virus remains part of the capsid protein and confers membrane association in vitro.
J. Virol.
64:5500-5509[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 52.
|
Suomalainen, M.,
P. Liljestrom, and H. Garoff.
1992.
Spike protein-nucleocapsid interactions drive the budding of alphaviruses.
J. Virol.
66:4737-4747[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 53.
|
Velasco, A.,
L. Hendricks,
K. W. Moremen,
D. R. P. Tulsiani,
O. Touster, and M. G. Farquhar.
1993.
Cell type-dependent variations in the subcellular distribution of -mannosidase I and II.
J. Cell Biol.
122:39-51[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 54.
|
Vennema, H.,
G.-J. Godeke,
J. W. A. Rossen,
W. F. Voorhout,
M. C. Horzinek,
D.-J. E. Opstelten, and P. J. M. Rottier.
1996.
Nucleocapsid-independent assembly of coronavirus-like particles by co-expression of viral envelope protein genes.
EMBO J.
15:2020-2028[Medline].
|
| 55.
|
von Heijne, G.
1989.
Control of topology and mode of assembly of polytopic membrane protein by positively charged residues.
Nature
341:456-458[Medline].
|
| 56.
|
Wolinsky, J.
1996.
Rubella, p. 899-929.
In
B. N. Fields, et al. (ed.), Fields virology. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, Pa.
|
Journal of Virology, May 1999, p. 3524-3533, Vol. 73, No. 5
0022-538X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Zhou, Y., Tzeng, W.-P., Yang, W., Zhou, Y., Ye, Y., Lee, H.-w., Frey, T. K., Yang, J.
(2007). Identification of a Ca2+-Binding Domain in the Rubella Virus Nonstructural Protease. J. Virol.
81: 7517-7528
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Claus, C., Hofmann, J., Uberla, K., Liebert, U. G.
(2006). Rubella virus pseudotypes and a cell-cell fusion assay as tools for functional analysis of the rubella virus E2 and E1 envelope glycoproteins.. J. Gen. Virol.
87: 3029-3037
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Law, L. J., Ilkow, C. S., Tzeng, W.-P., Rawluk, M., Stuart, D. T., Frey, T. K., Hobman, T. C.
(2006). Analyses of Phosphorylation Events in the Rubella Virus Capsid Protein: Role in Early Replication Events. J. Virol.
80: 6917-6925
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Beatch, M. D., Everitt, J. C., Law, L. J., Hobman, T. C.
(2005). Interactions between Rubella Virus Capsid and Host Protein p32 Are Important for Virus Replication. J. Virol.
79: 10807-10820
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Law, L. M. J., Everitt, J. C., Beatch, M. D., Holmes, C. F. B., Hobman, T. C.
(2003). Phosphorylation of Rubella Virus Capsid Regulates Its RNA Binding Activity and Virus Replication. J. Virol.
77: 1764-1771
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Law, L. M. J., Duncan, R., Esmaili, A., Nakhasi, H. L., Hobman, T. C.
(2001). Rubella Virus E2 Signal Peptide Is Required for Perinuclear Localization of Capsid Protein and Virus Assembly. J. Virol.
75: 1978-1983
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lee, J.-Y., Bowden, D. S.
(2000). Rubella Virus Replication and Links to Teratogenicity. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
13: 571-587
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Beatch, M. D., Hobman, T. C.
(2000). Rubella Virus Capsid Associates with Host Cell Protein p32 and Localizes to Mitochondria. J. Virol.
74: 5569-5576
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Yao, J., Gillam, S.
(2000). A Single-Amino-Acid Substitution of a Tyrosine Residue in the Rubella Virus E1 Cytoplasmic Domain Blocks Virus Release. J. Virol.
74: 3029-3036
[Abstract]
[Full Text]