Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Virology, December 2001, p. 12402-12411, Vol. 75, No. 24
0022-538X/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JVI.75.24.12402-12411.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Stabilization but Not the Transcriptional Activity
of Herpes Simplex Virus VP16-Induced Complexes Is Evolutionarily
Conserved among HCF Family Members
Soyoung
Lee1,2 and
Winship
Herr1,*
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring
Harbor, New York 11724,1 and Program in
Molecular and Cellular Biology, State University of New York, Stony
Brook, New York 117942
Received 1 June 2001/Accepted 12 September 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
The human herpes simplex virus (HSV) protein VP16 induces formation
of a transcriptional regulatory complex with two cellular factors
the
POU homeodomain transcription factor Oct-1 and the cell
proliferation factor HCF-1
to activate viral immediate-early-gene transcription. Although the cellular role of Oct-1 in transcription is
relatively well understood, the cellular role of HCF-1 in cell proliferation is enigmatic. HCF-1 and the related protein HCF-2 form an
HCF protein family in humans that is related to a Caenorhabditis elegans homolog called CeHCF. In this study, we show that all three proteins can promote VP16-induced-complex formation, indicating that VP16 targets a highly conserved function of HCF proteins. The
resulting VP16-induced complexes, however, display different transcriptional activities. In contrast to HCF-1 and CeHCF, HCF-2 fails
to support VP16 activation of transcription effectively. These results
suggest that, along with HCF-1, HCF-2 could have a role, albeit
probably a different role, in HSV infection. CeHCF can mimic HCF-1 for
both association with viral and cellular proteins and transcriptional
activation, suggesting that the function(s) of HCF-1 targeted by VP16
has been highly conserved throughout metazoan evolution.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
When herpes simplex virus (HSV)
infects a cell, the virion protein VP16 initiates a cascade of viral
gene transcription that leads to productive lytic infection. VP16 (also
known as Vmw65 and
-TIF) initiates viral gene transcription by
directing formation of a multiprotein transcriptional regulatory
complex
the VP16-induced complex
on HSV immediate-early promoters
with two cellular proteins: Oct-1, a POU domain transcription factor,
and HCF-1, a protein involved in cell proliferation (for reviews see
references 6, 21, and 24).
HCF-1 (also known as C1, VCAF, and CFF) is an unusual protein. It is
translated as a large polypeptide of 2,035 amino acids which undergoes
proteolysis at a series of centrally located 26-amino-acid repeats,
called HCF-1PRO repeats; the resulting amino
(HCF-1N)- and carboxy
(HCF-1C)-terminal polypeptides are stable and
remain noncovalently associated (10, 25, 27) through the
activity of two pairs of amino- and carboxy-terminal self-association
sequences (SAS) (29). At its amino terminus, HCF-1
contains six sequence repeats that are related to a sequence repeat
found in the Drosophila protein Kelch (1, 32)
and are thus referred to as HCF-1KEL repeats;
these repeats form a
-propeller structure which is responsible for
binding VP16 and is sufficient to stabilize the VP16-induced complex
(12, 28).
HCF-1 is known to be involved in cell proliferation independent of
viral infection because, in a mutant hamster cell line called
tsBN67, a proline-to-serine point mutation at position 134 (P134S) in the third HCF-1KEL repeat causes a
stable temperature-induced cell proliferation arrest (5).
This same mutation also impairs HCF-1 association with VP16 and
stabilization of the VP16-induced complex (5, 28),
suggesting that VP16 targets an activity involved in cell proliferation
when it associates with HCF-1. Although a mutation in the
HCF-1KEL repeat region causes cell proliferation
arrest, this region alone is not sufficient to rescue cell
proliferation
a neighboring basic region is also required (28).
In addition to VP16, the HCF-1KEL repeat region
interacts with two human basic leucine zipper proteins, LZIP (also
known as Luman) and Zhangfei (4, 16, 17, 19). LZIP and
Zhangfei have the same tetrapeptide HCF-1 binding sequence,
(D/E)HXY, as VP16 and, like VP16, fail to associate
with the tsBN67 mutant HCF-1. These results suggest that
VP16 mimics cellular proteins in its interaction with HCF-1 and that
the role of HCF-1 in viral proliferation may reflect its role in
cellular proliferation, although the precise mechanisms may differ in
detail (20).
Consistent with an important role in cell proliferation, elements of
HCF-1 are highly conserved in metazoans. For example, extracts from the
worm Caenorhabditis elegans and the insects Drosophila and Spodoptera are able to fulfill the
requirement for HCF-1 in VP16-induced-complex formation, implying the
presence of functional HCF-1 homologs in those organisms (9,
26). Indeed, C. elegans contains a functional HCF-1
homolog called CeHCF that can support VP16-induced-complex formation
(15). Human HCF-1, however, differs in some respects from
CeHCF: although the amino- and carboxy-terminal regions of HCF-1 are
highly conserved in CeHCF, the middle of the protein with its
HCF-1PRO repeats is missing in CeHCF. Thus, CeHCF
is much smaller than HCF-1 (782 versus 2,035 amino acids) and does not
undergo proteolytic processing (15, 31).
Subsequently, a second human HCF protein called HCF-2 was discovered;
like CeHCF, it is smaller than HCF-1, and the amino- and
carboxy-terminal regions, but not the middle of the protein, are
conserved (7). Unlike HCF-1 and CeHCF, however, the
interaction of HCF-2 with VP16 is reportedly weak, which has led to the
conclusion that HCF-2 is unlikely to play a role in transcriptional
activation by VP16 or in HSV infection (7).
To better understand the relationship of HCF-1 and HCF-2 to each other
and to CeHCF, we have compared all three proteins directly in both in
vitro and in vivo assays. We have found, unexpectedly, that all three
full-length HCF proteins can associate with VP16 and stabilize the
VP16-induced complex effectively. Unlike HCF-1 and CeHCF, however,
HCF-2 fails to support VP16-induced transcriptional activation
effectively in vivo. These and other results suggest that, since humans
diverged from worms during evolution, the HCF family has grown and
diversified in humans.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Constructs for HCF protein expression in mammalian cells.
The mammalian expression vector pCGN (23) was used for the
expression of N-terminal hemagglutinin (HA)-HCF fusion proteins (pCGN
series). The plasmids used in this study,
pCGNHCF-1
Rep, pCGNHCF-1N1011,
pCGNHCF-1N1011/P134S,
pCGNHCF-1N380, and
pCGNHCF-1N380/P134S, are described in reference
28. pCGNCeHCFFL and
pCGNCeHCFN395 are described in reference
15. pCGNHCF-2FL and
pCGNHCF-2N373 are described in reference
7 and were kind gifts from A. Wilson (New York University).
HCF chimeras.
pCGNHCF2N356/HCF-1N364-1011
was made as follows. A cDNA sequence corresponding to HCF-2 amino acids
2 to 356 was amplified by PCR with primers containing XbaI
(5') and BsaI (3') restriction enzyme recognition sites (5',
GCTCTAGAGCGGCTCCCAGCCTCCTC; 3', GCGGGTCTCGGTGGTTTCTCAGTATC; the
restriction sites are underlined), using
pCGNHCF-2N373 as a template. The HCF-1 cDNA
sequence corresponding to amino acids 364 to 1011 was amplified by PCR
from pCGNHCF-1N1011 with a primer containing a 5'
BsaI restriction site and a 3' primer corresponding to
sequences 3' of the HCF-1N1011 coding sequences and 3' BamHI cloning site (5',
GCGGGTCTCGCCACCACCCCCAGCCCG; 3', CAATCAAGGGTCCCCAAACTC). These two PCR products were digested
with the appropriate restriction enzymes and ligated together with a
pCGN vector linearized by digestion with XbaI and
BamHI.
pCGNCeHCFN378/HCF-1N364-1011
was made in a two-step procedure as follows. First,
pCGNCeHCFN395 was digested with BamHI and the cohesive end was flush ended by treatment with DNA polymerase I
large (Klenow) fragment. The linear molecule was subsequently digested
with XbaI. The resulting 1,185-bp
XbaI-BamHI CeHCFN395 fragment was inserted into the pCGNHCF-1N1011
vector between the XbaI and PmlI restriction
sites, creating
pCGNCeHCFN395-HCF-1N160-1011. The coding sequences between CeHCF amino acid 378 and HCF-1 amino acid
363 were deleted by oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (11,
33) with the oligonucleotide
CTTCTGGATACTATTTTACCACCACCCCCAGCCCG (CeHCF
sequences are underlined).
COS cell transfection and electrophoretic mobility retardation
assay.
COS cells were transfected by electroporation with a
Bio-Rad Genepulser with an extender set at 200 mV and 960 µF.
Twenty-four hours after transfection, the cells were washed and
collected in ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and lysed in
extraction buffer (300 mM NaCl, 100 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 0.2 mM
EDTA, 10% glycerol, 0.1% NP-40, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride).
The extracts were normalized to the level of HCF protein after
immunoblot analysis with the anti-HA mouse monoclonal antibody 12CA5.
Electrophoretic mobility retardation assays using the normalized
extracts were done as previously described (25). Briefly,
extracts containing equal amounts of HCF were mixed with 10 ng of
VP16
C, 5 ng of Oct-1 POU domain, and radiolabled DNA probe
containing an (OCTA+)TAATGARAT
VP16-responsive sequence from the HSV ICP0 promoter. Both
VP16
C and Oct-1 POU were synthesized in Escherichia coli fused to glutathione S-transferase, purified by affinity to
glutathione, and eluted by cleavage with thrombin. The binding mixtures
were incubated at 30°C for 30 min, and the resulting VP16-induced
complexes were resolved by electrophoresis through a 4% acrylamide gel
as described previously (25).
Transfection and in vivo transcription assay.
Transfection
of a subclone of tsBN67 cells called
tsBN67HR1 (30) by calcium
phosphate coprecipitation, preparation of RNA, and assay of in vivo
transcription by RNase protection were done as previously described
(5). Briefly, cells grown at 33.5°C were seeded at
1.2 × 106/10-cm-diameter dish. After
24 h at 33.5°C, they were transfected with 1 µg of the
selected HCF expression plasmid (pCGN series), 100 ng of the internal
reference plasmid p
4X(A+C), and 2 µg of the VP16-responsive
-globin-related reporter plasmid pU2/
6XTAAT, with or without 80 ng of the wild-type VP16 expression plasmid pCGNVP16. pUC119 was used
as carrier DNA to normalize the total amount of DNA to 20 µg. At
24 h posttransfection, the cells were washed with PBS containing 2 mM EGTA and further incubated at 33.5°C for 12 h, after which
the cells were harvested and cytoplasmic RNA was prepared by NP-40
lysis. Each sample was hybridized with radiolabled antisense
-globin
(
134) and
-globin (
98) RNA probes and treated with RNases A
and T1. Protected RNAs were separated on a 6%
denaturing polyacrylamide gel in 0.5× Tris-borate-EDTA. Signal
intensities were quantified using a Fuji BAS1000 phosphorimager. One-third of the collected cells were used for protein extraction, as
described for COS cells above, and for anti-HA immunoblotting to
visualize the expression levels of HCF and VP16.
tsBN67 cell rescue.
Rescue of the
tsBN67HR1 temperature-sensitive cell
proliferation defect was performed similarly to the method previously
described (5; P. Reilly and W. Herr, unpublished results).
tsBN67HR1 cells were seeded at
1.5 × 105/10-cm-diameter dish and incubated
at 33.5°C for 24 h. Transfection by calcium phosphate
coprecipitation was performed with 2 µg of pCGN HCF expression
constructs, 4 µg of pBabe-puro (a puromycin resistance marker), 1 µg of pBabe-lacZ (a
-galactosidase expression construct
to test the transfection efficiency), and 13 µg of pUC119 carrier
DNA. Twenty-four hours after transfection, the cells were washed with
1× PBS-2 mM EGTA and incubated for a further 24 h before passage
and temperature shift as follows. Cells from each 10-cm-diameter dish
were split onto three 6-cm-diameter dishes for long-term incubation
with puromycin at the nonpermissive 40°C temperature to measure
rescue of cell proliferation (N) and protein synthesis after extract
preparation (E) and for incubation at the permissive 33.5°C
temperature to measure transfection efficiency (P). After 2 days of
selection, the E plates were washed and the cells were collected with
ice-cold PBS. The cell pellets were resuspended in Laemmli sample
buffer and boiled for 5 min before being subjected to gel
electrophoresis for immunoblot analysis. The N and P plates were
maintained for 14 and 10 days, respectively, with refeeding at 3-day
intervals, and then washed with PBS and fixed with 4% formaldehyde,
and colonies were stained with 0.01% crystal violet solution.
Yeast two-hybrid assay.
The reporter Saccharomyces
cerevisiae strain YGH1 (MAT
ura3-52 his3-200 ade2-101
lys2-801 trp1-901 leu2-3
gal4-542 gal80-538 LYS::GAL1UAS-gal1TATA-HIS3
URA3::gal1-lacZ) has GAL4-responsive HIS3 and lacZ genes. Yeasts were grown in
synthetic complete media supplemented as indicated in Results. YGH1 was
first transformed with pGBT9-HCF plasmids encoding GAL4 DNA-binding
domain (DBD) residues 1 to 94 fused to various HCF coding sequences as
C-terminal fusion proteins. pGBT9,
pGBT9HCF-1N380, and
pGBT9HCF-1N380/P134S are described by Freiman and
Herr (4). pGBT9CeHCFN395 and
pGBT9CeHCFFL contain C. elegans HCF
amino acids 2 to 395 and 2 to 782, respectively, cloned between the
XbaI-BamHI sites of pGBT9. pGBT9-transformed yeast was selected by growth in the absence of tryptophan. Yeast containing the pGBT9HCF series was transformed a second time with the pGADGH series, in which a GAL4 transcriptional activation domain
(AD) is fused to VP16
C (pGADGHVP16
C),
VP16
CE361A
(pGADGHVP16
CE361A), LZIP (pGADGHLZIP), and
SNF-4 (pGADGHSNF-4) as described previously (4, 14; R. Freiman and W. Herr, unpublished results). Transformed yeasts were
selected by their ability to grow in the absence of tryptophan and
leucine, and the interaction between the DBD fusion proteins and the AD
fusion proteins was monitored by growth in the absence of tryptophan,
leucine, and histidine.
 |
RESULTS |
To compare HCF-1, HCF-2, and CeHCF, we performed a pairwise
comparison of their sequences and assessed their activities in three
different assays: (i) VP16-induced-complex formation in vitro, (ii)
VP16-induced transcriptional activation in vivo, and (iii) rescue of
the tsBN67 cell proliferation defect.
Human and C. elegans HCF protein similarity.
Figure 1A shows a schematic of the human
HCF-1 and HCF-2 and the worm CeHCF proteins. Both HCF-2 and CeHCF lack
similarity to the central region of HCF-1 containing the basic,
HCF-1PRO repeat, and acidic regions. The
amino-terminal HCF-1KEL repeat and a pair of
HCF-1 subunit self-association sequences, called SAS1N for the
amino-terminal SAS element and SAS1C for the carboxy-terminal SAS
element (Fig. 1), are conserved in both HCF-2 and CeHCF (7, 15,
29). Additionally, CeHCF, but not HCF-2 (7),
has sequence similarity to a carboxy-terminal nuclear localization
signal (NLS) present in HCF-1 (13).

View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
HCF proteins share sequence similarity in the amino- and
carboxy-terminal regions. (A) Schematic diagram of the human HCF
proteins HCF-1 and HCF-2 and the C. elegans HCF protein
CeHCF. Above the diagram of HCF-1 are shown the positions of (i)
functional regions of HCF-1 (e.g., VP16-induced complex [VIC]
formation and HCF-1 subunit association [SAS1N and SAS1C]) and (ii)
structural features of HCF-1 (e.g., HCF-1KEL repeats and
basic region). The solid and open triangles indicate active and
inactive HCF-1PRO repeats. The tandem solid arrowheads
indicate fibronectin type 3 (Fn3) repeats. Below the diagram of HCF-1
are shown the schematic structures of HCF-2 and CeHCF. Regions of
similarity are aligned by the lines connecting the diagrams. (B)
Sequence identity of HCF proteins. The percentage of identical amino
acid residues between each pair of proteins is shown. The sequence used
in each comparison was as follows: HCFKEL repeats, HCF-1
(amino acids [aa] 18-360), HCF-2 (aa 8-353), and CeHCF (aa
29-375); SAS1N, HCF-1 (aa 361-401), HCF-2 (aa 354-393), and CeHCF
(aa 376-416); and SAS1C, HCF-1 (aa 1812-2002), HCF-2 (aa 598-784),
and CeHCF (aa 553-749).
|
|
Figure
1B shows the percent amino acid identity for each pairwise
comparison among HCF-1, HCF-2, and CeHCF for the
HCF-1
KEL repeat, SAS1N, and SAS1C regions. The
pairwise comparison shows
that these three regions are all highly
related to each other
in these three proteins. HCF-1 and HCF-2,
however, are more closely
related to each other than to CeHCF,
suggesting that the human
HCF-1 and HCF-2 genes have resulted from a
gene duplication after
the divergence of worms and humans. The
progenitor to the human
and worm HCF proteins may have had a structure
more similar to
the present structure of HCF-2 and CeHCF. Although in
overall
structure CeHCF resembles HCF-2 more than HCF-1 (Fig.
1A),
CeHCF
is more closely related to HCF-1 than HCF-2 at the amino acid
sequence level in each of the three conserved regions (Fig.
1B),
suggesting that the functions that have been conserved in CeHCF
may
more closely resemble those of human HCF-1 than those of human
HCF-2.
As previously noted (
29), the sequences of the HCF-1 SAS
elements are conserved in HCF-2 and CeHCF, even though these proteins
are not known to be proteolytically processed. This observation
has
suggested that these regions have one or more functions other
than
"self-association" or that self-association is important
irrespective of HCF proteolysis (
29). The most highly
conserved
region, however, among all three proteins is the
HCF
KEL repeat
region (Fig.
1B), which is
responsible for association with VP16.
Thus, when VP16 associates with
HCF-1, it apparently targets the
most conserved domain in the HCF
protein
family.
All three HCF proteins can support VP16-induced-complex
formation.
Figure 2 shows a
comparison of the VP16-induced-complex formation activity of HCF-1,
HCF-2, and CeHCF proteins in an electrophoretic mobility retardation
assay with the Oct-1 DNA-binding POU domain and VP16 lacking the
carboxyl transcriptional AD (VP16
C), both synthesized in E. coli, and a labeled HSV
(OCTA+)TAATGARAT VP16 response
element-containing DNA probe. We compared the activities of (i)
full-length CeHCF and HCF-2; (ii) full-length HCF-1 lacking the
HCF-1PRO repeats, which is smaller than wild-type HCF-1 and is not processed, resulting in better synthesis and easier
normalization; and (iii) the HCF-1-VP16 interaction domain (residues 2 to 380) and corresponding regions of CeHCF (15) and HCF-2
(7). The HCF proteins, all containing an HA epitope tag at
the amino terminus, were synthesized in monkey COS cells by transient
expression (see Materials and Methods), and whole-cell extracts were
prepared. The normalized levels of HCF protein in each extract used for
complex formation are shown in Fig. 2B.

View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
All three HCF proteins can stabilize the VP16-induced
complex. (A) VP16-induced-complex formation. COS cell extracts
containing different HCF proteins were analyzed for
VP16-induced-complex formation activity with VP16 C, the Oct-1 POU
domain, and radiolabeled VP16 response element DNA probe, as described
in Materials and Methods. Protein-DNA complexes were resolved in an
electrophoretic mobility retardation assay. The positions of the free
probe, the Oct-1 POU domain-bound probe, and the VP16-induced complexes
(VICs) formed by different HCF proteins are indicated on the left. Lane
1, probe alone; lane 2, probe with Oct-1 POU domain; lane 3, probe with
VP16 C. Lanes 4, 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 13, 15 to 17, 19 to 21, 23 to 25, 27 to 29, and 31 to 33 contain the Oct-1 POU domain and VP16 C. Lane
5 contains in addition unprogrammed COS cell extract, and lanes 6 to 33 contain the COS cell extract with HCF protein as indicated. Each set of
three titration lanes contains a twofold titration, and the
non-VP16-containing sample contains the most concentrated extract. The
position of each VP16-induced complex is indicated with a dot. +,
present; , absent. (B) Immunoblot analysis of the COS cell
extracts used in the electrophoretic mobility retardation assay.
Extracts containing HA-tagged HCF proteins were resolved by sodium
dodecyl sulfate-8% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, transferred to
a nitrocellulose membrane, and blotted with the 12CA5 anti-HA antibody.
The asterisk on the right indicates a nonspecific band. The multiple
species smaller than 175 kDa in lane 2 are unrelated to HCF-1 but
instead reflect 12CA5-specific cross-reacting cellular proteins that
appear only in this sample because it contains the most cell extract
after sample normalization.
|
|
Figure
2A shows the result of the electrophoretic mobility retardation
assay. Addition of the Oct-1 POU domain alone to the
DNA probe results
in an Oct-1-POU domain-specific complex (lane
2). Addition of VP16

C
to the probe, either alone or in combination
with the Oct-1 POU domain,
has no evident effect (lanes 3 and
4). Addition of mock-transfected COS
cell extract to VP16

C and
the Oct-1 POU domain results in a low
level of slowly migrating
complexes (VP16-induced complexes) formed by
endogenous HCF-1
(lane 5). Comparison of VP16-induced complex formation
with that
of the HCF-1
Rep and full-length
HCF-2 and CeHCF proteins
shows that the levels of complex formation
with HCF-2 are similar
to those with HCF-1
Rep,
both of which are higher than with
the CeHCF protein (lanes 7 to
9, 11 to 13, and 15 to 17). These
results show that all three proteins
can support VP16-induced-complex
formation, although HCF-2 is more
effective than CeHCF in this
regard.
We were surprised to find that HCF-2 can effectively stabilize the
VP16-induced complex, because Johnson et al. (
7) showed
that the region of HCF-2 (HCF-2
N373)
corresponding to the HCF-1
VP16 interaction domain
(HCF-1
N380), which in HCF-1 is sufficient
for
VP16-induced complex formation, does not stabilize the VP16-induced
complex. We have shown previously, however, that the region of
CeHCF
(CeHCF
N395) corresponding to the HCF-1 VP16
interaction
domain has unexpectedly weak VP16-induced-complex formation
activity
(
15). We therefore directly compared the
VP16-induced-complex
formation activities of the
HCF-2
N373 construct used by Johnson
et al.
(
7) and the CeHCF
N395 proteins.
Consistent with the
previously reported results, both
HCF-2
N373 and CeHCF
N395 had
very weak VP16-induced-complex formation activity compared to
the
HCF-1
N380 construct (Fig.
2A, compare lanes 23 to
25 and 27
to 29 with lanes 19 to 21). Indeed, the
HCF-2
N373 and CeHCF
N395 constructs did not support VP16-induced-complex formation significantly
better than the corresponding mutant
HCF-1
N380/P134S molecule
(
5). We do
not know why the HCF-2
N373 and
CeHCF
N395 constructs
do not effectively stabilize
the VP16-induced complex, but this
inactivity is reflected in the
inability of these two proteins
to bind VP16 in a coimmunoprecipitation
assay (data not shown).
Because the wild-type full-length HCF-2 and
CeHCF proteins can
stabilize the VP16-induced complex effectively, we
conclude that
stabilization of the VP16-induced complex is a conserved
function
of these two human and one
C. elegans proteins.
HCF-1 and CeHCF, but not HCF-2, can promote VP16-induced
transcription effectively.
Because all three HCF proteins can
interact with VP16 and stabilize the VP16-induced complex, we next
asked whether the VP16-induced complexes formed by these three
different HCFs can promote VP16-induced transcriptional activation in
vivo. To compare the abilities of different HCF proteins to activate
transcription, we developed an assay in which ectopically expressed HCF
proteins were tested for transcriptional activation of a
-globin
promoter-reporter construct containing tandem VP16 response elements in
the presence of full-length VP16. To circumvent the transcriptional
activity of endogenous HCF-1, we used tsBN67 cells at
permissive temperature; under these conditions, the cells proliferate
normally but VP16 displays relatively little transcriptional activity
compared to wild-type BHK21 hamster cells (5, 28). The set
of HCF protein expression vectors used for the VP16-induced complex
formation assay shown in Fig. 2 were transiently transfected both with
and without a VP16 expression vector and the experimental
-globin and internal control
-globin reporter constructs. Additionally, the
activities of the wild-type and tsBN67 mutant
HCF-1N subunit (HCF-1N1011
and HCF-1N1011/P134S) were assayed. Levels of
reporter mRNA synthesis were measured by RNase protection analysis. The levels of HCF and VP16 protein synthesis were monitored by immunoblot analysis as shown in Fig. 3C.
The relative protein expression levels of HCF
proteins are indicated above each lane. The levels of VP16 synthesis
were similar in all samples containing VP16.

View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
VP16 activates transcription in association with HCF-1
and CeHCF but only weakly in association with HCF-2. (A)
Transcriptional activation by VP16 in tsBN67 cells grown
at 33.5°C. The cells were transfected with an HCF expression
construct, a VP16 expression construct, and reporter constructs, and
the resulting -globin and -globin reporter RNAs were probed by
RNase protection analysis as described in Materials and Methods.
Odd-numbered samples contained no cotransfected VP16 expression vector.
The samples shown here were normalized to the level of internal control
-globin transcript. The positions of the RNase-protected fragments
corresponding to -globin ( ), correctly initiated -globin
( ), and read-through (RT) -globin transcripts are indicated on
the left. +, present; , absent. (B) Quantitation of relative
-globin transcript levels. The intensity of each band corresponding
to the -globin transcript in the samples containing VP16 was measured by phosphorimager analysis. The
transcript levels are shown relative to the HCF-1N1011
sample (panel A, lane 4). The results represent the average of two
complete experiments; the CeHCFN395 was
uncharacteristically high in the experiment not shown here (high error
bars), and its apparently higher activity than CeHCFFL
shown here is not a true representation of its activity. (C) Immunoblot
analysis of the tsBN67 cell extracts used in the in vivo
transcription assay shown in panel A. Extracts were resolved by sodium
dodecyl sulfate-8% polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and transferred
to a nitrocellulose membrane, and the HA-tagged HCF and VP16 proteins
were detected with the 12CA5 anti-HA antibody. Only the VP16-containing
samples are shown. The position of each relevant HCF species is
indicated with a black dot to the right of each lane. A long exposure
of lane 4 is shown on the right (lane 4'). Relative levels of
HCF-protein synthesis are indicated above each lane. Lane 1, no ectopic
HCF protein synthesized.
|
|
Figure
3A shows a representative result of such an assay of HCF protein
activity. Figure
3B shows the averaged quantitated
results of two
experiments. Without HCF expression vector transfection
(lanes 1 and
2), the presence of VP16 results in little increase
in reporter
expression, probably owing in part to the relative
inactivity of the
endogenous mutant HCF-1 protein. Consistent
with a low level of
endogenous
tsBN67 mutant HCF-1 activity, transfection
of the
tsBN67 mutant HCF-1
N1011/P134S
expression vector (lanes
5 and 6) resulted in little increased VP16
transcriptional activity.
The most active HCF construct assayed was the
HCF-1
N1011 construct
(lane 4). The
transcriptional activity of HCF-1
Rep (lane
8)
was two- to threefold lower than that of
HCF-1
N1011 (lane 4),
perhaps owing in part to
lower levels of protein synthesis (Fig.
3B). In contrast to these two
HCF-1 expression constructs, full-length
HCF-2 displays much lower
activity (compare lane 10 with lanes
4, 6, and 8), even though it was
synthesized at high levels, suggesting
that, although it can form a
VP16-induced complex effectively
(Fig.
2), the resulting complex is not
as transcriptionally competent
as its HCF-1
counterpart.
In contrast to HCF-2, CeHCF displays significant activity (lane 12)
even though it originates from a distantly related organism
and does
not form a VP16-induced complex as effectively as the
human HCF-2
protein (Fig.
2). This result suggests that, once
formed, a
VP16-induced complex containing CeHCF is more transcriptionally
active
in mammalian cells than one containing HCF-2. The pattern
of
differential transcriptional activity observed with the full-length
proteins was also observed with the HCF-1
N380,
HCF-2
N373, CeHCF
N395,
and
HCF-1
N380/P134S HCF
KEL
domain proteins (lanes 14, 16, 18,
and
20).
Both HCF-2 and CeHCF fail to rescue the tsBN67 cell
proliferation defect.
The third assay in which we compared the
activities of HCF-1, HCF-2, and CeHCF was rescue of the
temperature-sensitive tsBN67 cell proliferation defect
caused by the P134S missense mutation in HCF-1 (5). This
cell proliferation defect can be rescued by both full-length HCF-1 and
the full-length HCF-1N subunit (28). Previous studies with full-length CeHCF and HCF-2 have provided contrasting results: CeHCF (15), but not HCF-2
(7), could rescue the tsBN67 cell proliferation
defect. The activity of CeHCF was unexpected because it lacks the
HCF-1-specific basic region, which is required for HCF-1 rescue of the
tsBN67 defect (Fig. 1) (28). We have since
discovered, however, that the original tsBN67 cell
population (5) contains a minor population of
proliferation revertants that are able to grow at the nonpermissive
temperature of 40°C (Reilly and Herr, unpublished).
This finding raised the possibility that the unexpected rescue of
tsBN67 cell proliferation by the CeHCF protein might have
resulted not from the CeHCF protein but rather from growth of
revertant
tsBN67 cell colonies in the rescue assay. To test this
hypothesis, we used a subclone of
tsBN67 cells called
tsBN67
HR1 (
30), which is
devoid of revertant cells. Figure
4 shows
the
results of such an experiment. Cell proliferation was monitored
in
a colony formation assay in which
tsBN67
HR1 cells were cotransfected
with an HCF expression vector (Fig.
4B) and a puromycin resistance
marker, and the colonies were assayed after growth in the presence
of
puromycin at 33.5°C for 10 days to check for transfection efficiency
or at 40°C for 14 days to assay rescue of proliferation at
nonpermissive
temperature (see Materials and Methods). Growth at the
permissive
temperature of 33.5°C showed that the transfection
efficiencies
were similar in all samples (data not shown).

View larger version (74K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
The HCF-2KEL repeat region can participate
in rescue of the tsBN67 cell proliferation defect. (A)
Colony formation assay. tsBN67 cells were transfected
with different HCF expression plasmids as indicated. After
transfection, the plates were incubated at 40°C for 14 days to permit
colony formation. The colonies were visualized by staining them with
crystal violet. (B) Schematic diagrams of HCF proteins analyzed and
relative levels of rescue of tsBN67 cell proliferation
at 40°C. See the legend to Fig. 1A for a description of the diagrams.
Asterisk, P134S tsBN67 point mutation. (C) Levels of HCF
proteins in transfected tsBN67 cells at nonpermissive
temperature. Transfected cells (E plates [see Materials and Methods])
were collected 48 h after transfection and temperature shift to
the nonpermissive temperature (40°C) and were used to make protein
extracts. The extracts were resolved by sodium dodecyl sulfate-8%
polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, transferred to a nitrocellulose
membrane, and probed with the 12CA5 anti-HA epitope tag antibody to
monitor the levels of HA-tagged HCF protein synthesis. The position of
each relevant band is indicated with a black dot. A long exposure of
the immunoblot is shown for lanes 2 to 5 (lanes 2' to 5').
|
|
As expected, cells transfected with the
HCF-1
N1011 construct (Fig.
4A, plate 2), but not
with the empty vector (plate 1) or
mutant
HCF-1
N1011/P134S expression vector (plate 3),
generated
colonies of
tsBN67 cells at 40°C. As previously
described (
7),
HCF-2 failed to rescue the
tsBN67 cell proliferation defect (plate
4), even though it
was synthesized at levels higher than HCF-1
N1011 (Fig.
4C, compare lanes 2 and 6). In contrast to our previous
study
(
15), however, CeHCF also failed to rescue the
tsBN67
defect in
tsBN67
HR1
cells (Fig.
4A, plate 5), even though it also
was present at higher
levels than the HCF-1
N1011 protein (compare
lanes
2 and 7; Fig.
4C). We therefore conclude that, contrary
to our earlier
findings (
15), CeHCF, like human HCF-2, does
not
complement the
tsBN67 HCF-1 defect. The apparent rescue by
CeHCF in the earlier experiments may have resulted from higher
transfection efficiency with the CeHCF samples, which was not
monitored
in those experiments (
15).
As mentioned above, HCF-2 and CeHCF lack sequences corresponding to the
basic region of HCF-1, which in HCF-1 are necessary
for rescue of the
tsBN67 cell proliferation defect (
28). We
therefore investigated whether either the HCF-2 or CeHCF
HCF
KEL repeat region can functionally replace the
HCF-1 HCF
KEL repeat
region for rescue of the
tsBN67 cell proliferation defect by exchanging
the
HCF-1
KEL repeats (residues 1 to 363) for the
corresponding
HCF-2 (residues 1 to 356) or CeHCF (residues 1 to 378)
sequences
to create HCF-2/HCF-1 and CeHCF/HCF-1 chimeric proteins (Fig.
4B). These chimeric proteins were synthesized at levels similar
to
those of HCF-1
N1011 (Fig.
4C, long exposure of
lanes 2', 4',
and 5'). As shown in Fig.
4A, the HCF-2/HCF-1 chimera,
but not
the CeHCF/HCF-1 chimera, could rescue the
tsBN67
cell proliferation
defect to some extent (compare plates 6 and 7 with
plate 1). Although
not as effective as HCF-1
N1011
(plate 2), the activity of the
HCF-2/HCF-1 chimera implies that the
HCF-2
KEL repeat region has
retained some of the
cellular function(s) of the HCF-1
KEL repeat
region. The reason(s) for the failure of the CeHCF/HCF-1 chimera
to
rescue the
tsBN67 cell proliferation defect is not clear.
The
reason could be an inherent inability of CeHCF to promote
mammalian-cell
proliferation, or the activity or stability of the
CeHCF
KEL repeat
region may be temperature
sensitive, because the temperature required
for the
tsBN67
cell proliferation rescue assay (40°C) is 20°C
higher than the
optimal temperature for
C. elegans growth (20°C).
CeHCF interacts with LZIP.
The studies described above show
that, whereas CeHCF is functional in the two viral assays
used
VP16-induced-complex formation and transcriptional activation
it
is not active in the one cellular assay used
rescue of
tsBN67 cell proliferation. The results of the rescue of
tsBN67 cell proliferation, however, are problematic, as
mentioned above. To test CeHCF function in a more defined molecular assay of cellular function, we tested the ability of CeHCF to associate
with the human leucine zipper protein LZIP in an S. cerevisiae two-hybrid assay (3). In that assay, we
compared the abilities of the HCF-1 and CeHCF proteins fused to the
GAL4 DBD and LZIP or VP16
C fused to the GAL4 transcriptional AD to activate transcription of the HIS3 gene and thus support
growth of HIS3
yeast in the absence of histidine.
Figure
5 shows the result of this
experiment. Four GAL4 DBD fusions to the
HCF-1
N380, HCF-1
N380/P134S,
CeHCF
N395, and CeHCF
FL proteins were paired with four GAL4 AD fusions to (i) the VP16

C
protein; (ii) the VP16

C
E361A mutant
(VP16

C
Mut), which fails
to associate with
HCF-1 (
14); (iii) the human LZIP protein;
and (iv) the
irrelevant yeast protein SNF-4. As expected (
4,
17),
HCF-1
N380 (plate 1), but not
HCF-1
N380/P134S (plate 2),
interacted with the
GAL4 AD-VP16

C and the GAL4 AD-LZIP proteins,
but both failed to
interact with the GAL4 AD-VP16

C
Mut and SNF-4
proteins. Like wild-type HCF-1
N380, the GAL4
DBD-CeHCF
N395 (plate
3), and GAL4
DBD-CeHCF
FL (plate 4) proteins interacted with
VP16

C
and LZIP but not the VP16

C
Mut and
SNF-4 fusion proteins. Thus,
full-length CeHCF, as well as the
CeHCF
KEL repeat region, can
associate
with LZIP, suggesting that, like HCF-1, CeHCF possesses
the ability to
associate with both a human protein

LZIP

and the
protein of a human
viral pathogen

VP16. For unexplained reasons,
HCF-2 failed to
associate with either VP16 or LZIP in this yeast
two-hybrid assay, even
though it was synthesized at the same levels
as CeHCF (data not shown).
Nevertheless, the results shown here
suggest that the association of
HCF-1 and CeHCF with both LZIP
and VP16 reflects the conservation of an
important activity during
metazoan evolution.

View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
C. elegans HCF interacts with human LZIP
in a yeast two-hybrid assay. A yeast GAL1-HIS3 reporter
strain was transformed with expression plasmids encoding different HCF
proteins fused to the GAL4 DBD together with an expression plasmid
encoding either one of two known HCF-1 binding proteins (VP16 and LZIP)
or nonbinding proteins (VP16 C and SNF-4) fused to a GAL4 AD. (A) Key
for GAL4-AD fusion protein samples shown in panel B. (B) Yeast
two-hybrid assays. The DBD fusion protein used is indicated above each
plate. Successful growth with histidine (+His; left half of each plate)
shows that each expression plasmid has no lethal effect. The
interaction between a DBD fusion protein and an AD fusion protein is
demonstrated by successful growth in the absence of histidine ( His;
right half of each plate).
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
We have characterized and compared three HCF proteins in
their interaction with the viral protein VP16, both in
VP16-induced-complex formation and transcriptional activation and in
their activities in mammalian cells. Our results show that all three
HCF proteins
the human HCF-1 and HCF-2 proteins and the C. elegans CeHCF protein
can associate with VP16 and form a stable
VP16-induced complex with Oct-1 (Fig. 2). The resulting VP16-induced
complexes, however, have different activities for transcriptional
activation (Fig. 3), raising the possibility that the two human HCF
proteins can have opposing effects on how VP16 influences the outcome
of viral infection. In contrast to HCF-2, but like HCF-1, CeHCF can
both associate with VP16 and induce transcriptional activation by VP16 in mammalian cells, even though CeHCF does not normally interact with
VP16, a key regulator of a human pathogen. This result suggests that
HCF-1 and CeHCF possess a shared and conserved cellular activity that
is used by VP16 to form a transcriptionally active VP16-induced complex. In contrast to our previous findings (15),
however, CeHCF fails to complement the tsBN67 cell
proliferation defect, although this failure may reflect more about the
normal growth temperatures of humans and worms than about an inherent
difference in cellular HCF function in these different species.
VP16 discriminates between HCF-1 and HCF-2 but not at the level of
VP16-induced-complex formation.
Our results show that both HCF-1
and HCF-2 can stabilize the VP16-induced complex effectively. We did
not expect this result, because Johnson et al. (7) had
shown that the region of HCF-2 (HCF-2N373)
analogous to a minimal region of HCF-1
(HCF-1N380) that stabilizes the VP16-induced
complex (28) is unable to stabilize the VP16-induced
complex effectively. We have reproduced this result, but when we
assayed the full-length HCF-2 protein, it did stabilize the
VP16-induced complex effectively (Fig. 2). We do not know the reason
for the inactivity of the truncated HCF-2N373 protein. We note, however, that the HCFKEL
repeats only extend to residue 360 in HCF-1 and residue 353 in HCF-2.
Perhaps the 20 carboxy-terminal non-HCFKEL repeat
SAS1N residues in the HCF-2N373 construct, but
not in the HCF-1N380 construct, interfere with VP16-induced complex formation. Alternatively, the carboxy-terminal SAS1C region of HCF-2 may stabilize the VP16-induced complex, as has
been described previously under certain conditions for HCF-1
(12).
Whatever the reason for the failure of the
HCF-2
N373 protein to stabilize the VP16-induced
complex, the ability of the full-length
wild-type HCF-2 protein to
stabilize the VP16-induced complex
has important implications for our
understanding of the interplay
of HCF-1 and HCF-2 with VP16 in human
cells. The activity of the
wild-type HCF-2 protein suggests that HCF-2
association with VP16
may influence the outcome of HSV infection, by
either promoting
or inhibiting lytic or latent
infection.
Surprisingly, although HCF-2 can stabilize the VP16-induced complex
effectively, it fails to support activation of transcription
by VP16.
Thus, HCF-1 and HCF-2 have dramatically different activities
as a
result of their association with VP16, in one instance (HCF-1)
activating transcription and in the other instance (HCF-2) failing
to
do so effectively (Fig.
3). We do not know the reason for the
difference in transcriptional activity by HCF-1 and HCF-2. One
possibility is that HCF-2 lacks a carboxy-terminal NLS found in
HCF-1
(Fig.
1) and the localization of HCF-2 is variable after
transient
overexpression (
7). We do not favor this hypothesis,
however, because HCF-1, which is a chromatin-bound protein, does
not
require the NLS for either nuclear localization or chromatin
association (
30) or for transcriptional activation with
VP16
in either yeast (
28) or mammalian cells (Fig.
3,
HCF-1
N1011).
Furthermore, when stably synthesized
in HeLa cells without overexpression,
HCF-2 is also associated with
nuclear chromatin (J. Wysocka and
W. Herr, unpublished results). We
therefore favor the hypothesis
that an HCF-2-containing VP16-induced
complex is able to bind
appropriately to a VP16-inducible promoter but
that the complex
is inactive either because HCF-2 lacks an essential
activity present
in HCF-1 or because it possesses an inhibitory
activity not present
in HCF-1. For example, cyclin-dependent kinase
activity is required
for transcriptional activation by the VP16-induced
complex (
8).
Perhaps an HCF-2-containing VP16-induced
complex is not able to
respond to cyclin-dependent kinase activity.
Whatever the reason,
the relative inability of HCF-2 to activate
transcription compared
to HCF-1 suggests that HCF-2 might inhibit VP16
function and thus
perhaps either inhibit lytic infection or promote
latent infection
by
HSV.
HCF-2 may also serve as an inhibitor of HCF-1 function in the
uninfected cell. Johnson et al. (
7) showed that
full-length
wild-type HCF-2 can inhibit the ability of wild-type HCF-1
to
rescue the temperature-sensitive
tsBN67 cell
proliferation defect.
Because we have shown here that HCF-1 and HCF-2
can associate
similarly with VP16, it is plausible that HCF-2 can also
associate
similarly with cellular targets of HCF-1 but, as with VP16,
display
different activities with the shared
targets.
The differences in HCF-1 and HCF-2 activity may result from differences
in the regions conserved between the two proteins,
such as the
HCF
KEL repeat region, or in the sequences that
are
not conserved between the two proteins, such as those corresponding
to the HCF-1-specific basic region that are essential for
tsBN67
cell rescue by HCF-1 (
28). Indeed, both
of these possibilities
may play a role in the inhibition of HCF-1
rescue of the
tsBN67
cell proliferation defect by HCF-2,
because when the HCF-2 Kelch
repeat region is fused to the HCF-1 SAS1N
and basic regions, the
chimeric HCF-2/HCF-1 protein displays an ability
to rescue the
tsBN67 cell proliferation defect that is
intermediate between
those of HCF-1 and HCF-2 (Fig.
4). The finding
that the HCF-2
KEL repeat region cannot
functionally replace the HCF-1
KEL repeat
region
to wild-type levels suggests that other functions of the
HCF-1
KEL repeat region in addition to association
with cellular
VP16-like binding activities are required to promote cell
proliferation,
as suggested previously by Mahajan and Wilson
(
20). In summary,
the family of mammalian HCF-1 and HCF-2
proteins may represent
a pair of regulators of cell proliferation that
counteract each
other's
activities.
C. elegans HCF shares properties of human HCF-1 and
HCF-2.
In contrast to human cells, C. elegans has only
one evident HCF-like protein (15). The overall structure
of this protein more closely resembles human HCF-2 (Fig. 1A), but in
some features CeHCF more closely resembles human HCF-1, including amino
acid sequence similarity (Fig. 1B) and VP16 transcriptional activation (Fig. 3). Like both HCF-1 and HCF-2, however, it is able to associate effectively with VP16. Because VP16 is an activator of the lytic pathway of a human viral pathogen not known to exist in worms, we
believe that the ability of CeHCF to associate with VP16 is due to a
cellular protein-protein interaction that has been conserved between
humans and worms and that is mimicked by VP16. Underscoring the
significance of this observation is the finding that, in contrast to
HCF proteins, the other cellular component of the VP16-induced complex
Oct-1
has not conserved its ability to associate with VP16
even in a species as closely related to humans as mice, much less in
invertebrates (2, 22).
A potential conserved cellular target of HCF proteins is LZIP, which,
like VP16, can associate with both HCF-1 and CeHCF.
Unlike in
Drosophila, however, which contains the LZIP-like protein
BBF-2/dCREB-A (
4,
17), there is no evident LZIP homolog in
worms (S. Lee and W. Herr, unpublished results). Furthermore,
there is
no known
C. elegans homolog of the second human
HCF-1-interacting
protein called Zhangfei (
19). One
possible explanation for the
lack of evident conservation of LZIP and
Zhangfei homologs in
C. elegans is that the family of
HCF
KEL repeat-interacting proteins
in human cells
is larger than presently known. Consistent with
this hypothesis, and in
contrast to LZIP (
18) and Zhangfei (
19),
HCF-1 is an abundant human protein, and it is entirely tethered
to
chromatin through its VP16 interaction domain, suggesting that
other human proteins are also involved in tethering HCF-1 to chromatin
(
30). We suggest that one or more of these other proteins
have
homologs in
C. elegans that are involved in shared
activities
of HCF-1 and
CeHCF.
The hybrid nature of CeHCF compared to the human HCF-1 and HCF-2
proteins suggests that it performs functions in the worm
that in human
cells are performed by either HCF-1 or HCF-2. Determination
of those
functions should help elucidate the function of the human
HCF proteins,
one of which at least

HCF-1

plays a critical role
in human cell
proliferation and HSV
pathogenesis.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Patrick Reilly for suggesting that the rescue of
tsBN67 cell proliferation by CeHCF may result from
revertant cells in the tsBN67 cell population and for
help with the tsBN67 rescue assay; A. Wilson for HCF-2
constructs; G. Hannon, M. Hengartner, N. Hernandez, and G. Thomsen for
discussions and guidance; R. Freiman for early studies of HCF-1
activation of VP16-induced transcription in tsBN67
cells; J. Wysocka for communication of unpublished results; and N. Hernandez, E. Julien, C. Schmitt, A. Stenlund, and J. Wysocka for
comments on the manuscript.
These studies were supported by PHS grants GM54598 and CA13106 and Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory funds.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory, P.O. Box 100, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724. Phone: (516) 367-8401. Fax: (516) 367-8454. E-mail:
herr{at}cshl.org.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Adams, J.,
R. Kelso, and L. Cooley.
2000.
The kelch repeat superfamily of proteins: propellers of cell function.
Trends Cell. Biol.
10:17-24[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Cleary, M. A.,
S. Stern,
M. Tanaka, and W. Herr.
1993.
Differential positive control by Oct-1 and Oct-2: activation of a transcriptionally silent motif through Oct-1 and VP16 corecruitment.
Genes Dev.
7:72-83[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 3.
|
Fields, S., and O. Song.
1989.
A novel genetic system to detect protein-protein interactions.
Nature
340:245-246[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Freiman, R. N., and W. Herr.
1997.
Viral mimicry: common mode of association with HCF by VP16 and the cellular protein LZIP.
Genes Dev.
11:3122-3127[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Goto, H.,
S. Motomura,
A. C. Wilson,
R. N. Freiman,
Y. Nakabeppu,
K. Fukushima,
M. Fujishima,
W. Herr, and T. Nishimoto.
1997.
A single-point mutation in HCF causes temperature-sensitive cell-cycle arrest and disrupts VP16 interaction.
Genes Dev.
11:726-732[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 6.
|
Herr, W.
1998.
The herpes simplex virus VP16-induced complex: mechanisms of combinatorial transcriptional regulation.
Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.
63:599-607[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Johnson, K. M.,
S. S. Mahajan, and A. C. Wilson.
1999.
Herpes simplex virus transactivator VP16 discriminates between HCF-1 and a novel family member, HCF-2.
J. Virol.
73:3930-3940[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 8.
|
Jordan, R.,
L. Schang, and P. A. Schaffer.
1999.
Transactivation of herpes simplex virus type 1 immediate-early gene expression by virion-associated factors is blocked by an inhibitor of cyclin-dependent protein kinases.
J. Virol.
73:8843-8847[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Kristie, T. M.,
J. H. LeBowitz, and P. A. Sharp.
1989.
The octamer-binding proteins form multi-protein-DNA complexes with HSV TIF regulatory protein.
EMBO J.
8:4229-4238[Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Kristie, T. M.,
J. L. Pomerantz,
T. C. Twomey,
S. A. Parent, and P. A. Sharp.
1995.
The cellular C1 factor of the herpes simplex virus enhancer complex is a family of polypeptides.
J. Biol. Chem.
270:4387-4394[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Kunkel, T. A.,
J. D. Roberts, and R. A. Zakour.
1987.
Rapid and efficient site-specific mutagenesis without phenotypic selection.
Methods Enzymol.
154:367-382[Medline].
|
| 12.
|
LaBoissière, S.,
S. Walker, and P. O'Hare.
1997.
Concerted activity of host cell factor subregions in promoting stable VP16 complex assembly and preventing interference by the acidic activation domain.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17:7108-7118[Abstract].
|
| 13.
|
LaBoissière, S.,
T. Hughes, and P. O'Hare.
1999.
HCF-dependent nuclear import of VP16.
EMBO J.
18:480-489[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Lai, J.-S., and W. Herr.
1997.
Interdigitated residues within a small region of VP16 interact with Oct-1, HCF, and DNA.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17:3937-3946[Abstract].
|
| 15.
|
Liu, Y.,
M. O. Hengartner, and W. Herr.
1999.
Selected elements of herpes simplex virus accessory factor HCF are highly conserved in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19:909-915[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Lu, R.,
P. Yang,
P. O'Hare, and V. Misra.
1997.
Luman, a new member of the CREB/ATF family, binds to herpes simplex virus VP16-associated host cellular factor.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17:5117-5126[Abstract].
|
| 17.
|
Lu, R.,
P. Yang,
S. Padmakumar, and V. Misra.
1998.
The herpesvirus transactivator VP16 mimics a human basic leucine zipper protein, Luman, in its interaction with HCF.
J. Virol.
72:6291-6297[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 18.
|
Lu, R., and V. Misra.
2000.
Potential role for Luman, the cellular homologue of herpes simplex virus VP16 ( gene trans-inducing factor), in herpesvirus latency.
J. Virol.
74:934-943[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Lu, R., and V. Misra.
2000.
Zhangfei: a second cellular protein interacts with herpes simplex virus accessory factor HCF in a manner similar to Luman and VP16.
Nucleic Acids Res.
28:2446-2454[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 20.
|
Mahajan, S. S., and A. C. Wilson.
2000.
Mutations in host cell factor 1 separate its role in cell proliferation from recruitment of VP16 and LZIP.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20:919-928[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
O'Hare, P.
1993.
The virion transactivator of herpes simplex virus.
Semin. Virol.
4:145-155.
|
| 22.
|
Suzuki, N.,
W. Peter,
T. Ciesiolka,
P. Gruss, and H. R. Scholer.
1993.
Mouse Oct-1 contains a composite homeodomain of human Oct-1 and Oct-2.
Nucleic Acids Res.
21:245-252[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 23.
|
Tanaka, M., and W. Herr.
1990.
Differential transcriptional activation by Oct-1 and Oct-2: interdependent activation domains induce Oct-2 phosphorylation.
Cell
60:375-386[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 24.
|
Thompson, C. C., and S. L. McKnight.
1992.
Anatomy of an enhancer.
Trends Genet.
8:232-236.
|
| 25.
|
Wilson, A. C.,
K. LaMarco,
M. G. Peterson, and W. Herr.
1993.
The VP16 accessory protein HCF is a family of polypeptides processed from a large precursor protein.
Cell
74:115-125[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 26.
|
Wilson, A. C.,
M. A. Cleary,
J.-S. Lai,
K. LaMarco,
M. G. Peterson, and W. Herr.
1993.
Combinational control of transcription: the herpes simplex virus VP16-induced complex.
Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.
18:167-178.
|
| 27.
|
Wilson, A. C.,
M. G. Peterson, and W. Herr.
1995.
The HCF repeat is an unusual proteolytic cleavage signal.
Genes Dev.
9:2445-2458[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Wilson, A. C.,
R. N. Freiman,
H. Goto,
T. Nishimoto, and W. Herr.
1997.
VP16 targets an amino-terminal domain of HCF involved in cell cycle progression.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17:6139-6146[Abstract].
|
| 29.
|
Wilson, A. C.,
M. Boutros,
K. M. Johnson, and W. Herr.
2000.
HCF-1 amino- and carboxy-terminal subunit association through two separate sets of interaction modules: involvement of fibronectin type 3 repeats.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20:6721-6730[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 30.
|
Wysocka, J.,
P. T. Reilly, and W. Herr.
2001.
Loss of HCF-1 chromatin association precedes temperature-induced growth arrest of tsBN67 cells.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
21:3820-3829[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 31.
|
Wysocka, J.,
Y. Liu,
R. Kobayashi, and W. Herr.
2001.
Developmental and cell-cycle regulation of Caenorhabditis elegans HCF phosphorylation.
Biochemistry
40:5786-5794[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 32.
|
Xue, F., and L. Cooley.
1993.
kelch encodes a component of intercellular bridges in Drosophila egg chambers.
Cell
72:681-693[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 33.
|
Zoller, M. J., and M. Smith.
1983.
Oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis of DNA fragments cloned into M13 vectors.
Methods Enzymol.
100:468-500[Medline].
|
Journal of Virology, December 2001, p. 12402-12411, Vol. 75, No. 24
0022-538X/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JVI.75.24.12402-12411.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Yamauchi, Y., Kiriyama, K., Kubota, N., Kimura, H., Usukura, J., Nishiyama, Y.
(2008). The UL14 Tegument Protein of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Is Required for Efficient Nuclear Transport of the Alpha Transinducing Factor VP16 and Viral Capsids. J. Virol.
82: 1094-1106
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Piluso, D., Bilan, P., Capone, J. P.
(2002). Host Cell Factor-1 Interacts with and Antagonizes Transactivation by the Cell Cycle Regulatory Factor Miz-1. J. Biol. Chem.
277: 46799-46808
[Abstract]
[Full Text]