Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, July 2001, p. 6235-6241, Vol. 75, No. 13
Ludwig Institute for Cancer
Research1 and Virology and Cell Biology
Section,2 Imperial College School of Medicine,
London W2 1PG, United Kingdom
Received 19 October 2000/Accepted 3 April 2001
Most of the Epstein-Barr virus genome in latently infected cells is
in a standard nucleosomal structure, but the region encompassing oriP and the Epstein-Barr virus-encoded small RNA
(EBER) genes shows a distinctive pattern when digested with
micrococcal nuclease. This pattern corresponds to a previously mapped
nuclear matrix attachment region. Although the EBER genes are adjacent
to oriP, there is only a two- to fourfold effect of
oriP on EBER expression. However, sequences containing a
consensus ATF site upstream of EBER1 are important for EBER1 expression.
The relationship between gene
expression, local chromatin structure, and proximity to origins of DNA
replication are all of current interest in the study of gene
regulation. The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) chromosome may be a useful
system to study these topics, since it is a relatively large circular
double-stranded DNA genome (about 172 kb in length) which is
maintained in cell nuclei as a multicopy episome (7, 18).
The EBV DNA contains about 85 genes, most of which are transcribed by
cell RNA polymerase II, but the two EBV-encoded small RNA (EBER) genes
are transcribed by RNA polymerase III. Sensitivity of RNA polymerase
III transcription to control by proteins conventionally considered to
regulate transcription factors for genes transcribed by RNA polymerase
II has been studied recently (20). The EBER genes are
located immediately adjacent to the oriP plasmid origin of
replication, which is required for the maintenance of the EBV episome
in human cells. oriP contains two segments of reiterated
binding sites for the EBV EBNA1 protein, the family of repeats
(FR) and the dyad symmetry element. In addition to its role in plasmid
maintenance, the FR portion of oriP also acts as a
transcription enhancer and has been shown to increase transcription
from the EBV Cp promoter (23) and the promoter for the
LMP1 gene (9), both of which are transcribed by RNA polymerase II.
The EBERs are the most abundant EBV transcripts in latently
infected cells. EBER1 is 167 nucleotides and EBER2 is 172 nucleotides in length. Neither is thought to be translated into protein, and their
functions are uncertain (for a review, see reference 4). Although the EBER genes are not essential for EBV infection of human B
lymphocytes and establishment of lymphoblastoid cell lines (24), the EBERs are expressed in several types of
EBV-associated cancer. Analysis of the cell growth properties of the
Akata Burkitt's lymphoma cell line indicated that EBER genes conferred
a more-transformed phenotype on clones of Akata cells that lack EBV,
converting their growth properties to be more similar to EBV-positive
clones of Akata cells (19). EBERs are not expressed to a
significant degree in the lytic EBV infection observed in oral hairy
leukoplakia (10), and the transcription of the EBER genes
has been shown to be reduced when infected cells are induced to the
lytic cycle (11). EBER genes are transcribed by RNA
polymerase III, and the EBER genes contain internal promoter sequences
similar to those in other polymerase III genes, such as tRNA and 5S
RNA. However, unlike transcription in tRNA and 5S RNA, EBER
transcription is also regulated by sequences 5' of each of the EBER
genes (14). These sequences appear to bind transcription
factors normally associated with the regulation of genes transcribed by
RNA polymerase II. The promoter for EBER2 has been analyzed by testing
mutated promoters in transfection assays (13, 14). The
results showed that deleting 5' sites that would be expected to bind
SP1 (box I) and ATF (box II) together reduced transcription by
more than 90%. Additionally, deleting a sequence resembling a TATA box
(box III) reduced expression even further. Point mutations in either box I or box III reduced expression by 80%, whereas mutating the ATF-like box II site reduced expression by 50%.
EBV DNA has been shown previously to be organized in nucleosomes in
latently infected cells (6, 22), and the relationship between histone acetylation at the Zp promoter and reactivation of the
viral genome from latency have recently been demonstrated (17). The earlier studies of the nucleosomal structure of
EBV DNA in latently infected cells used very large probes
(6), so the nucleosome patterns were averaged over large
regions of the genome. To investigate chromatin structure locally in
more-defined regions of the viral genome, we probed Southern blots of
DNA obtained from partial micrococcal nuclease digests of nuclei from
EBV-positive Akata cells with shorter DNA probes (Fig.
1A). Probes at most locations in the viral genome gave the same regular nucleosomal pattern
superimposed on a background smear from the lytically replicated viral
DNA (Fig. 1B, top). The lytically replicated viral DNA, which
appears not to be in a regular nucleosomal structure, was present
because of the low level of spontaneous lytic viral replication that
occurs in Akata cells; a similar pattern was observed previously in
B95-8 cells (6). As with B95-8 cells, it was possible to
reduce the background by growing the cells in a low concentration of
phosphonoacetic acid (PAA) to prevent lytic replication of EBV. After
this treatment, a much clearer pattern could be observed (Fig. 1B,
bottom, BamHI W).
0022-538X/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JVI.75.13.6235-6241.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Variant Chromatin Structure of the
oriP Region of Epstein-Barr Virus and Regulation of
EBER1 Expression by Upstream Sequences and
oriP


![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References

View larger version (33K):
[in a new window]
FIG. 1.
(A) Summary of probes used to determine nucleosome
patterns in Akata EBV, shown on a circular map representing the B95-8
strain (172,281 bp). Map coordinates are shown in kilobases at 20-kb
intervals. The regions of the genome probed previously (6)
(positions 54853 to 92708 and 128848 to 166619) are compared with the
probes used in this study. Coordinates of probes shown were as follows:
EBER, positions 6629 to 7096; oriP, 7271 to 7818; BCRF1,
9705 to 10138; IR1, 14265 to 14585; EBNA2, 48810 to 49059; BHRF1, 54406 to 54891; gp350, 89621 to 89958; BZLF1, 102725 to 102980; EBNA1, 109299 to 109877; BdRF1, 148814 to 149389; and BARF0, 160301 to 160760. (B) Southern blots of micrococcal nuclease digestion patterns
(6) of Akata 6 (17) and AM58 chromatin.
Nuclei from Akata 6 cells were digested with micrococcal nuclease for
2, 5, 10, or 20 min, and DNA was extracted and analyzed by Southern
blotting with the indicated probes (details of probes are given in the
legend to panel A). For the bottom three panels, the Akata 6 cells were
grown in 0.2 to 0.4 mM PAA for 10 days prior to analysis to reduce the
level of spontaneous lytic EBV replication in the culture. DNA size
markers were coelectrophoresed (lanes M), and sizes are shown in
kilobases on the bottom panels. (C) Micrococcal nuclease digestion
patterns as shown in panel B but from AM58 cells, which contain an EBV
strain lacking the EBER genes (24). (D) Analysis of
boundaries of variant micrococcal nuclease digestion pattern around
oriP and EBER gene regions. Part of the genome of B95-8
EBV is represented under a scale in kilobases, and the positions of the
EBER genes, oriP, the major internal repeat IR1, and
open reading frames BCRF1 and BNRF1 (part) are shown. Probes marked
below were derived from the BC series of M13 clones used in the EBV
sequencing program (3) and are drawn to scale; boundaries
are as follows: 510.BC, positions 4176 to 4425; 221.BC, 4920 to 5430;
151.BC, 5712 to 6259; 580.BC, 6121 to 6684; 254.BC, 6463 to 6835;
602.BC, 6587 to 7150; 276.BC, 6656 to 6933; 319.BC, 6865 to 7343;
164.BC, 7184 to 7380; 277.BC, 7271 to 7818; 313.BC, 8339 to 8602;
136.BC, approximately 8699 to 9277; 361.BC, 9368 to 9746; 317.BC, 9708 to 10065; IR1, 14265 to 14585.
The exceptions to the regular nucleosomal pattern were those probes hybridizing to EBV sequences near the oriP and EBER gene regions (Fig. 1B). Those probes gave a weak and smeared pattern on the Southern blots. By using various short probes around this region (Fig. 1D and data not shown), it was possible to identify approximate boundaries of the part of the EBV genome that do not give a regular nucleosomal pattern, which corresponded approximately to nucleotides 6400 to 8300 on the viral genetic map. This region of EBV approximates the matrix attachment region (MAR) (16), which has previously been found by other techniques to be attached to the nuclear matrix during latency. It is unclear whether the unusual micrococcal nuclease profile of this part of the viral DNA is due to extreme sensitivity to micrococcal nuclease or to a chromatin structure that is different from the rest of the viral episome (15). The EBER genes are adjacent to oriP, within the region of unusual chromatin structure. The different chromatin structure was, however, not simply a consequence of the high level of transcription of the EBER genes because a recombinant EBV in which the EBER genes had been deleted (AM58) (24) also showed the same poorly defined micrococcal nuclease digestion pattern using an oriP probe (Fig. 1C).
We considered the possibility that the variant EBV chromatin pattern
might be affected by the cell cycle stage of the cells. EBV DNA
synthesis occurs during the cell S phase, and the adherence of EBV
episomes to host cell chromosomes has been visualized in mitotic
chromosomes so a cell cycle relationship could be envisaged. Burkitt's
lymphoma cells are generally difficult to synchronize in the cell cycle
(2), but populations enriched for S or M phase were
obtained by treating the cells with thymidine or nocodazole, respectively. Propidium iodide staining of the nuclei and flow cytometry demonstrated the effectiveness of these procedures (Fig. 2A). However, Southern blotting of
comparable micrococcal nuclease partial digests of the chromatin from
these cells showed no effect of the thymidine or nocodazole in the
regions studied (Fig. 2B). The IR1 and EBNA1 probes have the
standard 200-bp nucleosomal ladder, and the EBER gene region and
oriP display the weak hybridization patterns shown in Fig.
1. We thus found no evidence for a relationship of the variant
structure to a particular phase of the cell cycle.
|
Although the EBERs are transcribed by RNA polymerase III with the
normal intragenic control elements, the unusual additional control of
the promoter by upstream elements which may bind transcription factors
normally associated with RNA polymerase II transcription is of
considerable interest. The previously reported deletion analysis of the
promoter for the EBER2 gene (14), identifying elements box
I, II, and III (Fig. 3A) was performed in
the absence of oriP and EBNA1, and no detailed mapping has
been reported for EBER1. We therefore sought to test the effect of 5'
deletions of the EBER1 promoter and the contribution of oriP
and/or EBNA1 to EBER expression. Although we have recently
advocated the use of established cell lines containing episomal vectors
in the analysis of EBV gene regulation (17), problems were
encountered with the EBER genes because of progressive loss of EBER
expression. We were able to prepare transfected cell lines which
initially showed expression of the EBER1 gene comparable with that
found in normal Akata cells (Fig. 3B), but expression of the EBER genes and EBNA1 was invariably lost as these EBER lines were cultured. In
contrast to our studies with other oriP plasmids, there was presumably some selection against the p294:EcoJ plasmid during extended
culture, although the cells were maintained in hygromycin. This
variation rendered the stable transfection system unsuitable for
quantitative analysis of EBER promoter elements, so we instead used a
transient assay system similar to that employed for EBER2 analysis
(14). Assessment of the effect of oriP on EBER
expression can evidently only be done with a transient assay system,
since the plasmids lacking oriP would not be maintained as
episomes.
|
In the p294:EcoJ plasmid (Fig. 3A), the EBER genes are reconstructed
close to their normal configuration relative to oriP. EBER1
expression from this construct was compared to that of a series of 5'
deletions upstream of EBER1 (Fig. 3A). EBER RNA expression from the
plasmids was measured by transfection of 293 cells and analysis of
total cell RNA by Northern blotting with probes specific for EBER1 or
EBER2. The amount of transfected plasmid and the time of harvesting the
RNA after transfection were titrated so that the subsequent assays
would be within the linear range of the assay (Fig.
4A). Assay conditions of 4 µg of
transfected DNA (with 0.25 µg of pCMV-
gal) were selected with an
assay time of 48 to 50 h (Fig. 4A).
|
5' deletion of the p294:EcoJ plasmid through p294:9 or p294:1 made
little difference to the expression of EBER1, indicating that sequences
upstream of box I were not required for EBER1 expression (Fig.
5A). To ensure that the level of EBNA1
expressed from the p294-transfected vector was sufficient for
oriP function, the same plasmids were also transfected into
293 cells constitutively expressing EBNA1; only a small increase was
observed, of about 50% (Fig. 5A). Successive deletion of boxes I, II,
and III (plasmids p294:3, p294:5, and p294:7) showed a major effect on
EBER1 transcription of deleting box II (Fig. 5B). The results of five
similar experiments were averaged to give the quantitation of EBER1
expression shown in Fig. 5D. The RNA from the experiment shown in Fig.
5B was also blotted for EBER2 expression (Fig. 5B); this did not vary
significantly as EBER1 promoter elements were deleted and confirms the
good quality of the RNA (Fig. 5B, lanes 5 and 7) of the EBER1
experiment. Although little additional effect was seen when box III was
deleted, this may be because the level of transcription was already
very low after deletion of box II. Deletion of box I caused a 50%
reduction, on average, of EBER1 expression. This is a much smaller
reduction than was observed upon mutation of box I in the EBER2
analysis (14).
|
Some of the EBER promoter mutants were also cloned into the pTA vector, which lacks oriP and EBNA1. The expression of EBER1 from construct 1 from the TA vector in 293 cells was about 50% of that of the corresponding p294 construct (Fig. 5C), suggesting only a modest enhancement of EBER expression by oriP, in contrast to the up to 200-fold increase reported with oriP on the Cp and LMP1 promoters (9, 23).
In summary, we have mapped a region spanning the EBER genes and the FR segment of oriP in which the DNA seems to be more sensitive to micrococcal nuclease than the rest of the EBV episome, not having a standard nucleosomal structure. The sequences around oriP and the EBER genes appear to be exceptionally sensitive to digestion rather than protected from access to the micrococcal nuclease (there is very little signal on the Southern blots with the EBER and oriP probes), so access of micrococcal nuclease to the DNA is not prevented in this region. The region of variant chromatin structure corresponds approximately to the MAR identified previously by different methods (16), consistent with the notion of attachment to the cell chromosomes through this part of the episome. Since chromosome attachment is considered to be via EBNA1 binding to the FR segment of oriP, it was surprising that the region of variant chromatin structure extended so far, particularly on the EBER side of the FR. It might be that the reason for the EBER genes having a variant chromatin structure is more related to their high level of transcription than the MAR function, which was not mapped very precisely in the earlier experiments (16). Since the EBV episomes contain genes transcribed by RNA polymerases II and III and the episomes could potentially be isolated as chromatin, EBV may be a useful system with which to study the relationship between chromatin structure and gene expression.
The sequences regulating EBER2 transcription have been studied previously (14). Because of the presence of similar sequences upstream of EBER1, it was assumed that the regulation of EBER1 was the same. We have now tested this directly and shown that box II plays a major role in regulating EBER1 expression in the assay system we have used. The presence of oriP and EBNA1 increased EBER transcription two- to fourfold but had a much smaller effect than has been observed on the Cp or LMP1 promoters, which are conventional RNA polymerase II promoters of EBV. Whether this reflects the different chromatin states of the EBER genes compared to the polymerase II promoters or the different transcription factors involved is currently unknown. Box II contains a potential ATF binding site (sequence TGACGTAG), with which a standard ATF site competes effectively in a transcription assay (14). We have found that transfection of an ATF1 expression vector caused a modest increase in expression of EBER1 (data not shown), but the ATF transcription factor family is a very complex matrix of protein dimers (12), so it is difficult to know which ATF factor might be the relevant one to study in connection with this site. With run-on assays, EBER transcription has been shown to decline during lytic replication (11). It is remarkable that there is very little or no EBER detectable during the intense EBV lytic replication that is observed in oral hairy leukoplakia lesions (10), bearing in mind the very high abundance of EBERs in most EBV-infected cell lines and tumors and the ubiquitous expression of RNA polymerase III. It would be difficult to determine exactly which forms of ATF are present in oral hairy leukoplakia, since such small amounts of tissue are available from the patients. However, changes in the ATF family profile during epithelial cell differentiation in the squamous epithelium might account for the lack of EBER expression, in the same way that changes in ATF activity have previously been proposed to be related to induction of the lytic cycle of EBV (1, 21).
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
B.W. and A.S. are equal first authors.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Imperial College School of Medicine, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, United Kingdom. Phone: 44 20 7563 7703. Fax: 44 20 7724 8586. E-mail: p.farrell{at}ic.ac.uk.
Present address: Department of Internal Medicine, University of
Cologne, Cologne D-50931, Germany.
Present address: Department of Oncology, Cheltenham Hospital,
Cheltenham, United Kingdom.
§ Present address: MRC HGMP Resource Centre, Hinxton CB10 1SB, United Kingdom.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Adamson, A. L.,
D. Darr,
E. Holley-Guthrie,
R. A. Johnson,
A. Mauser,
J. Swenson, and S. Kenney.
2000.
Epstein-Barr virus immediate-early proteins BZLF1 and BRLF1 activate the ATF2 transcription factor by increasing the levels of phosphorylated p38 and c-Jun N-terminal kinases.
J. Virol.
74:1224-1233 |
| 2. |
Allday, M. J., and P. J. Farrell.
1994.
Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen EBNA3C/6 expression maintains the level of latent membrane protein 1 in G1-arrested cells.
J. Virol.
68:3491-3498 |
| 3. | Baer, R., A. T. Bankier, M. D. Biggin, P. L. Deininger, P. J. Farrell, T. J. Gibson, G. Hatfull, G. S. Hudson, S. C. Satchwell, C. Seguin, P. Tuffnell, and B. Barrell. 1984. DNA sequence and expression of the B95-8 Epstein-Barr virus genome. Nature 310:207-211[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 4. | Clemens, M. J. 1994. Functional significance of the Epstein-Barr virus-encoded small RNAs. Epstein-Barr Virus Rep. 1:107-111. |
| 5. |
Davenport, M. G., and J. S. Pagano.
1999.
Expression of EBNA-1 mRNA is regulated by cell cycle during Epstein-Barr virus type I latency.
J. Virol.
73:3154-3161 |
| 6. |
Dyson, P. J., and P. J. Farrell.
1985.
Chromatin structure of Epstein-Barr virus.
J. Gen. Virol.
66:1931-1940 |
| 7. | Farrell, P. 1995. Epstein-Barr virus immortalizing genes. Trends Microbiol. 3:105-109[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 8. | Farrell, P. J., M. Hollyoake, G. Niedobitek, A. Agathanggelou, A. Morgan, and N. Wedderburn. 1997. Direct demonstration of persistent EBV gene expression in peripheral blood of infected common marmosets and analysis of virus infected tissues in vivo. J. Gen. Virol. 78:1417-1424[Abstract]. |
| 9. | Gahn, T. A., and B. Sugden. 1995. An EBNA-1-dependent enhancer acts from a distance of 10 kilobase pairs to increase expression of the Epstein-Barr virus LMP gene. J. Virol. 69:2633-2636[Abstract]. |
| 10. |
Gilligan, K.,
P. Rajadurai,
L. Resnick, and N. Raab-Traub.
1990.
Epstein-Barr virus small nuclear RNAs are not expressed in permissively infected cells in AIDS-associated leukoplakia.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
87:8790-8794 |
| 11. |
Greifenegger, N.,
M. Jager,
L. A. Kunz-Schughart,
H. Wolf, and F. Schwarzmann.
1998.
Epstein-Barr virus small RNA (EBER) genes: differential regulation during lytic viral replication.
J. Virol.
72:9323-9328 |
| 12. |
Hai, T. W.,
F. Liu,
W. J. Coukos, and M. R. Green.
1989.
Transcription factor ATF cDNA clones: an extensive family of leucine zipper proteins able to selectively form DNA-binding heterodimers.
Genes Dev.
3:2083-2090 |
| 13. |
Howe, J., and M. Shu.
1993.
Upstream basal promoter element important for exclusive RNA polymerase III transcription of the EBER 2 gene.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13:2655-2665 |
| 14. | Howe, J. G., and M. D. Shu. 1989. Epstein-Barr virus small RNA (EBER) genes: unique transcription units that combine RNA polymerase II and III promoter elements. Cell 57:825-834[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 15. | Hsieh, D., S. Camiolo, and J. Yates. 1993. Constitutive binding of EBNA1 protein to the Epstein-Barr virus replication origin, oriP, with distortion of DNA structure during latent replication. EMBO J. 12:4933-4944[Medline]. |
| 16. | Jankelevich, S., J. L. Kolman, J. W. Bodnar, and G. Miller. 1992. A nuclear matrix attachment region organizes the Epstein-Barr viral plasmid in Raji cells into a single DNA domain. EMBO J. 11:1165-1176[Medline]. |
| 17. |
Jenkins, P.,
U. Binné, and P. Farrell.
2000.
Histone acetylation and reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus from latency.
J. Virol.
74:710-720 |
| 18. | Kieff, E. 1996. Epstein-Barr virus, p. 2343-2396. In B. N. Fields, D. M. Knipe, and P. M. Howley (ed.), Fields virology, 3rd ed. Lippincott-Raven Press, Philadelphia, Pa. |
| 19. |
Komano, J.,
S. Maruo,
K. Kurozumi,
T. Oda, and K. Takada.
1999.
Oncogenic role of Epstein-Barr virus-encoded RNAs in Burkitt's lymphoma cell line Akata.
J. Virol.
73:9827-9831 |
| 20. | Larminie, C. G., C. A. Cairns, R. Mital, K. Martin, T. Kouzarides, S. P. Jackson, and R. J. White. 1997. Mechanistic analysis of RNA polymerase III regulation by the retinoblastoma protein. EMBO J. 16:2061-2071[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 21. | MacCallum, P., L. Karimi, and L. J. Nicholson. 1999. Definition of the transcription factors which bind the differentiation responsive element of the Epstein-Barr virus BZLF1 Z promoter in human epithelial cells. J. Gen. Virol. 80:1501-1512[Abstract]. |
| 22. |
Shaw, J. E.,
L. F. Levinger, and C. Carter, Jr.
1979.
Nucleosomal structure of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in transformed cell lines.
J. Virol.
29:657-665 |
| 23. |
Sugden, B., and N. Warren.
1989.
A promoter of Epstein-Barr virus that can function during latent infection can be transactivated by EBNA-1, a viral protein required for viral DNA replication during latent infection.
J. Virol.
63:2644-2649 |
| 24. |
Swaminathan, S.,
B. Tomkinson, and E. Kieff.
1991.
Recombinant Epstein-Barr virus with small RNA (EBER) genes deleted transforms lymphocytes and replicates in vitro.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
88:1546-1550 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| J. Bacteriol. | Mol. Cell. Biol. | Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. |
|---|
| Clin. Vaccine Immunol. | ALL ASM JOURNALS |
|---|