Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, April 2002, p. 4131-4137, Vol. 76, No. 8
0022-538X/02/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JVI.76.8.4131-4137.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research and McGill AIDS Center Jewish General Hospital,1 Departments of Medicine,2 Immunology and Microbiology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3T 1E23
Received 17 September 2001/ Accepted 11 January 2002
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
During HIV-1 assembly, Gag-Pol is also incorporated into the virus. The factors facilitating the interaction between Gag and Gag-Pol have been less studied, although it has been assumed that these molecules interact with each other through similar sequences involved in Gag/Gag interactions. Evidence for this includes the fact that unmyristylated Gag or Gag-Pol molecules can also be rescued into assembly complexes by myristylated Gag (36, 39, 45). An apparent exception to this assumption is the fact that mutations in the major homology region in the C-terminal half of CAp24 can still allow formation of Gag particles but inhibit the packaging of Gag-Pol into these particles (24, 47). In this work, we show that an RNA requirement for Gag/Gag-Pol interaction probably reflects a requirement for an RNA-facilitated Gag polymerization, and not a direct interaction of Gag-Pol with RNA.
Table 1 provides an overview of the expression constructs used in the study, including appropriate references to their origin. In Fig. 1, we have transfected COS7 cells with pSVC21 BH10.P-, a plasmid coding for protease-negative HIV-1. We have examined the distribution of Gag/Gag-Pol complexes in three cellular fractions: nonpelletable, membrane free; pelletable, membrane free; and pelletable, membrane bound. Resh and colleagues reported that nearly all steady-state Gag in HIV-1-transfected COS1 cells is pelletable and membrane bound (22, 48). The data in Fig. 1 suggest a similar conclusion for Gag/Gag-Pol complexes. In the experiments represented in panels A and B, cells were swollen in hypotonic buffer without detergent and lysed by Dounce homogenization (25 to 30 strokes). The lysate was first centrifuged at low speed (1,500 x g) for 30 min, and the resulting supernatant (S1) was then centrifuged at 100,000 x g for 1 h, resulting in a pellet (P100) and supernatant (S100). Nonpelletable, membrane-free Gag and Gag-Pol were defined as the molecules remaining in the S100 supernatant, while the pelletable material (P100) was further resolved by discontinuous sucrose gradient centrifugation into membrane-free components remaining at the bottom of the gradient and membrane-bound components located at the interface between the 65 and 10% sucrose layers (flotation assay).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. List of HIV-1 proviral DNA constructs
|
![]() View larger version (49K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Distribution of Gag/Gag-Pol complexes in COS7 cells. Culture and transfection of COS7 cells by the calcium phosphate method and viral isolation were as previously described (8, 27). COS7 cells were lysed 48 h posttransfection at 4°C in two ways. (i) With a hypotonic medium, lysis was done by Dounce homogenization in hypotonic Tris-EDTA buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.4], 1 mM EDTA, 0.01% ß-mercaptoethanol) supplemented with a protease inhibitor cocktail (Complete; Boehringer Mannheim). (ii) With a nonionic detergent, cells were lysed in TNT buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.5], 200 mM NaCl, 1% Triton X-100) supplemented with a protease inhibitor cocktail (Complete; Boehringer Mannheim). For either method, the cell homogenate was then centrifuged at 1,500 x g for 30 min to remove nuclei and unbroken cells. The supernatant (S1) was then centrifuged for 1 h at 100,000 x g in an SW 55Ti rotor (Beckman, Columbia, Md.) at 4°C, yielding the supernatant (S100) and the pellet (P100). Further fractionation of the P100 into membrane-free and membrane-bound protein was done by the membrane flotation assay (44). P100 was resuspended in 1 ml of 73% sucrose. Two milliliters of 65% sucrose in TNE (20 mM Tris [pH 7.8], 100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA) was layered on top of the 73% sucrose, and 2 ml of 10% sucrose was layered on top of the 65% sucrose. The gradients were then centrifuged at 100,000 x g in a Beckman SW55 Ti rotor overnight at 4°C. Fractions (0.8 ml) were collected and diluted with an equal volume of 2x TNT, and each fraction was immunoprecipitated at 4°C with anti-IN. A polyclonal antibody to integrase protein (anti-IN), directed against either the first 16 amino acids (NIH AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program) or amino acids 276 to 288 (a gift from Mark Muesing, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center), was used to immunoprecipitate the Gag/Gag-Pol complexes. Equal amounts of protein, 200 to 500 µg (Bio-Rad assay), were incubated with 30 µl of antibody cross-linked to protein A-Sepharose (Pharmacia Amersham Biotech, Quebec) for 1 h at 4°C. The immunoprecipitate was then washed three times with TNT and twice with phosphate-buffered saline. After the final supernatant was removed, 30 µl of 2x sample buffer (120 mM Tris HCl [pH 6.8], 20% glycerol, 4% sodium dodecyl sulfate [SDS], and 0.02% bromophenol blue) was added and the precipitate was then boiled for 5 min to release the precipitated proteins. After microcentrifugation, the resulting supernatant was analyzed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Western blots were probed with mouse anti-CA antibody (Cellular Products, Inc., Buffalo, N.Y.), at a dilution of 1:2,000. It was used as the primary antibody, and horseradish peroxidase-linked goat anti-mouse antibody was used as a secondary antibody. Antibody binding was detected by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL kit; Pharmacia Amersham Biotech). (A and C) Western blots of anti-IN immunoprecipitates of the S100 and P100 fractions from hypotonic-lysed cells (A) or Triton X-100-lysed cells (C). (B and D) The P100 fraction from hypotonic-lysed cells (B) or Triton X-100-lysed cells (D) was resolved by discontinuous sucrose gradient centrifugation into membrane-bound (I, interface) and membrane-free (B, bottom) protein. Each fraction was immunoprecipitated with anti-IN and analyzed by Western blotting using anti-CA.
|
Although Gag and Gag/Gag-Pol complexes are found in the pelletable, membrane-bound fraction when COS7 cells are lysed in hypotonic medium with Dounce homogenization, lysing cells in 1% Triton X-100 alters this distribution, i.e., Gag/Gag-Pol complexes are released from the membrane but remain pelletable. This is shown in Fig. 1C and D, depicting an assay in which Gag/Gag-Pol complexes are immunoprecipitated from the detergent lysate using anti-IN and a Western blot analysis of the immunoprecipitates uses anti-CA to detect Gag and Gag-Pol. Gag/Gag-Pol complexes remain in the P100 fraction (Fig. 1C) but are released from bulk membrane (Fig. 1D). Although discontinuous sucrose gradient analysis indicates that the P100 fraction contains Gag-Pol that has become membrane free, it may be more appropriate to refer to this as bulk membrane free, since this type of analysis may not distinguish membrane-free molecules from those bound to detergent-resistant, high-density membrane subdomains. For example, it has been reported that in HIV-1-transfected COS1 cells, a fraction of Gag determined to be membrane free by discontinuous sucrose gradient analysis is in fact present in such membrane subdomains. These domains were termed barges because their buoyant densities were greater than those found for lipid raft membrane subdomains, perhaps due to the large sizes of the multimeric Gag complexes (32).
Since RNA (genomic or cellular) plays an important role in the formation of the Gag complex (2, 37), we have examined the role of RNA in the Gag/Gag-Pol interaction. Studies were done with the P100 fraction isolated from cells lysed in 1% Triton X-100. We first examined the ability of the Gag/Gag-Pol complex to be immunoprecipitated in the presence of nucleases. COS7 cells were transfected with BH10 P-, and the results (Western blots of anti-IN immunoprecipitates of the P100 fraction, stained with anti-CA and anti-reverse transcriptase [RT]) are shown in Fig. 2A. Lane 1 shows the coimmunoprecipitation of Gag with Gag-Pol in the absence of nuclease, while lane 2 shows that this interaction is unaffected by the presence of DNase. The addition of RNase (lane 3) or DNase and RNase (lane 4) before immunoprecipitation results in the inhibition of coimmunoprecipitation of Gag with Gag-Pol. Similar results are obtained if RNase is added after immunoprecipitation but before washing and release of the anti-IN/Gag-Pol complex from the beads (lane 5). These results indicate that RNA is required for maintaining the stability of the Gag/Gag-Pol complex. It will be noted regarding this figure that immunoprecipitation with anti-IN always results in a small amount of precipitation of a species migrating in a manner similar to that of Gag. This species, which may be the heavy chain of anti-IN detected by the secondary antibody, is considered background since it appears even in anti-IN immunoprecipitates from lysates of nontransfected COS7 cells (data not shown).
![]() View larger version (53K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Role of RNA in the formation and/or stability of Gag/Gag-Pol complexes. COS7 cells were transfected with mutant HIV-1 proviral DNA. Forty-eight hours posttransfection, cells were lysed on ice in TNT buffer containing 1% Triton X-100 and after clarification by low-speed centrifugation were centrifuged at 100,000 x g for 1 h at 4°C to produce the S100 and P100 fractions. The P100 fraction resolved from the lysates was immunoprecipitated with anti-IN, and Western blots were probed with mouse anti-RT antibodies (38) and mouse anti-CA antibodies (Cellular Products, Inc.). (A) Effects of RNase A upon Gag/Gag-Pol complex formation. The P100 fractions from COS7 cells transfected with pSVC21 BH10.P- proviral DNA were pretreated with no DNase or RNase (lane 1), 20 µg of DNase (lane 2), 20 µg of RNase (lane 3), or 20 µg of both DNase and RNase (lane 4) and then immunoprecipitated with anti-IN. In lane 5, the pSVC21 BH10.P- P100 fraction was first immunoprecipitated and then treated with 20 µg of RNase, followed by washing with TNT buffer and phosphate-buffered saline and analysis by Western blotting. (B) Genomic RNA packaging is not required for Gag/Gag-Pol complex formation, but RNA is. COS7 cells were transfected with pSVC21 BH10.P- proviral DNA (lane 1) or with a construct expressing both Gag and Gag-Pol, pSVGAG/GAGPOL.P-, which lacks the five-leader region of the genomic RNA, including the packaging signal (lanes 2 and 3). The P100 fractions were immunoprecipitated with anti-IN and analyzed by Western blotting. In lane 3, the sample was treated with RNase before immunoprecipitation. (C and D) Effects of mutations in the basic amino acid regions flanking the first Cys-His box in NC upon Gag/Gag-Pol complex formation. COS7 cells were cotransfected with different combinations of plasmids coding for either Gag or Gag-Pol, which either were wild type or contained mutations in the basic amino acid regions flanking the first Cys-His box. All plasmids were inactive for the viral protease. (C) Western blot analysis of viral proteins in the P100 fraction of COS7 cells cotransfected with plasmids (described in Table 1) coding for the following: wild-type Gag-Pol, pSVGAGPOL.P-, and mutant Gag, pSVR7-GAG (lane 1); wild-type Gag, pSVGAG, and mutant Gag-Pol, pSVR7-GAGPOL.P- (lane 2); mutant Gag, pSVR7-GAG, and mutant Gag-Pol, pSVR7-GAGPOL.P- (lane 3); wild-type Gag-Pol, pSVGAGPOL.P-, and mutant Gag, pSVS3-GAG (lane 4); wild-type Gag, pSVGAG, and mutant Gag-Pol, pSVS3-GAGPOL.P- (lane 5); and mutant Gag, pSVS3-GAG, and mutant Gag-Pol, pSVS3-GAGPOL.P- (lane 6). (D) The corresponding P100 fractions were immunoprecipitated with anti-IN and analyzed by Western blotting.
|
Since RNA has been shown to be important for Gag multimerization, we investigated whether the dependence upon RNA for stability of the Gag/Gag-Pol complex reflected a direct interaction of Gag-Pol with RNA or if the interaction of Gag-Pol with Gag depends primarily upon the ability of RNA to facilitate Gag multimerization. NC sequences are required for the interaction of Gag with genomic RNA and have been shown to be important for Gag multimerization in vitro. It is currently thought that specific interactions of Gag with viral genomic RNA involve the interaction of Cys-His boxes in NC (15-17) with specific stem-loop structures in the 5' leader sequence of the RNA (1, 9, 11, 29). On the other hand, the basic amino acids flanking the first (or only) Cys-His box have been proposed to interact via ionic bonds nonspecifically with viral or cellular RNA, a process which may serve to concentrate Gag molecules for intermolecular interactions during assembly (5, 7, 20). Mutations in the basic amino acid regions flanking the first Cys-His box in HIV-1 NC reduce by approximately 80% both viral RNA packaging into virus and the in vivo annealing of primer tRNA3Lys onto the genomic RNA that is packaged (8, 25). We have studied the effects of these mutations upon the formation of the Gag/Gag-Pol complex by cotransfecting COS7 cells with pSVGAG and pSVGAG-POL vectors, which code for either Gag or Gag-Pol, respectively. Mutations were made in these vectors, which flank the first, Cys-His box in NC, using either the upstream mutation, R7R10K11S, or the downstream mutation, S3(32-34). The presence of both Gag and Gag-Pol in lysates of cells cotransfected with various combinations of wild-type and mutant pSVGAG and pSVGAG-POL vectors is shown in the Western blots in Fig. 2C, while Western blots of the anti-IN immunoprecipitates from these lysates are shown in Fig. 2D. Gag/Gag-Pol complex formation is inhibited by the R7R10K11S mutation, but not by the S3(32-34) mutation. Furthermore, the R7R10K11S mutation is inhibitory only when present in Gag (Fig. 2D, lanes 1 and 3). This mutation has no effect upon complex formation when present only in the Gag-Pol precursor (Fig. 2D, lane 2) and indicates that the interaction of Gag-Pol with Gag does not require Gag-Pol to first interact with RNA. The requirement of RNA for Gag-Pol to interact with Gag may therefore reflect a requirement for Gag multimerization.
The difference in the abilities of the R7R10K11S and S3(32-34) mutations to disrupt Gag/Gag-Pol complex formation is reflected in their different abilities to disrupt extracellular viral particles and cytoplasmic Gag particle formation, as shown in Fig. 3 and 4, respectively. Both R7R10K11S and S3(32-34) reduce packaging of viral genomic RNA in virions equally well (about 75 to 80% in Fig. 3), but it may be that the ability to bind to nonviral RNA is more severely reduced by the R7R10K11S mutation than by the S3(32-34) mutation. This should affect extracellular viral and cytoplasmic Gag complex production, and in fact, this is shown to be the case by the results given in Fig. 3 and 4, respectively. In the assay presented in Fig. 3, we measured both the relative viral production in culture (sedimentable CAp24) and the relative amount of genomic RNA found per sedimentable CAp24 in virus-like particles produced from COS7 cells transfected with wild-type and mutant HIV-1 proviral DNA. As previously reported, genomic RNA packaging is maximally affected (94% reduction) by mutations in the first Cys-His box (C15S/C18S), while mutations in the second Cys-His box (C36S/C39S) or in the regions flanking the first Cys-His box [R7R10K11S and S3(32-34)] reduce genomic RNA packaging by 75 to 80%. But viral particle production is not correlated with the lack of genomic RNA packaging, and the R7R10K11S mutation clearly produces the greatest inhibition of viral particle production. The particles produced could have resulted from a weaker, but maintained, ability of plasma membrane to organize Gag molecules into particles ready for budding, i.e., the virus may be capable of using less efficient alternative assembly pathways (23, 41). Although the R7R10K11S particles are capable of packaging both Gag-Pol and tRNA3Lys (26), Western blots detecting the RT protein in these particles show that RT protein is present at only 25 to 50% of the levels found in the wild-type virions (4, 26), so that the total particle-associated Gag-Pol seen in the R7R10K11S mutant virions is probably only 5 to 10% of that seen in the wild type.
![]() View larger version (11K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Genomic RNA packaging and CAp24 production in extracellular wild-type and mutant viruses. Culture and transfection of COS7 cells by the calcium phosphate method and viral isolation were as previously described (8, 27). Viral particle release into cell culture medium was measured by CAp24 production. CAp24 was determined by using the commercial kit available for CAp24 antigen capture (Abbott Laboratories). Viral RNA isolation and quantification by dot blot hybridization was performed as previously described (8, 25).
|
![]() View larger version (52K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Formation of cytoplasmic wild-type and mutant Gag complexes. COS7 cells were transfected with pSVC21 BH10.P-, pSVR7-GAG, and pSVS3-GAG. Forty-eight hours posttransfection, cells were lysed on ice in TNT buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, and after clarification by low speed centrifugation, the resulting S1 supernatant was analyzed by equilibrium density centrifugation. Prior to centrifugation, one-half of the S1 fraction from cells transfected with pSVC21 BH10.P- was treated with RNase A, and equal amounts of the four lysate preparations were resolved by ultracentrifugation. Twelve fractions were collected, each fraction was centrifuged at 100,000 x g for 1 h at 4°C, and the resulting P100 pellet was analyzed by Western blotting. The small inserts in each panel represent analysis of the S100 and P100 fractions before gradient fractionation, in which Gag was immunoprecipitated by anti-CA and analyzed by Western blotting.
|
Thus, although RNA is part of the Gag/Gag-Pol complexes (Fig. 2A and B) and need not be genomic RNA (Fig. 2B), the influence of RNA upon the Gag/Gag-Pol interaction appears to act through RNA's ability to facilitate Gag/Gag interactions. Gag-Pol does not seem to interact directly with RNA. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the R7R10K11S mutation inhibits the Gag/Gag-Pol interaction only when present in Gag, which disrupts Gag polymerization but does not inhibit the Gag/Gag-Pol interaction when present only in Gag-Pol (Fig. 2D, lanes 1 to 3). This observation makes it unlikely that the disruption of the Gag/Gag-Pol complex is due to either (i) the disruption of an RNA bridge to which both precursors bind or (ii) disruption of a protein-protein interaction at the NC sequences containing R7R10K11. The tertiary structure of Gag-Pol is not known, but it is possible that the RNA binding sequence within the Gag NC is hidden by the large Pol sequence during the early stages of assembly.
|
|
|---|
-RNA recognition element. Science 279:384-388.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»