Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, September 2003, p. 10106-10112, Vol. 77, No. 18
0022-538X/03/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JVI.77.18.10106-10112.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Microbiology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado 80262,1 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 805232
Received 21 February 2003/ Accepted 5 June 2003
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Two strains of pseudorabies virus (PRV), PRV Becker and PRV-Bartha, have been used with great success to transsynaptically infect central nervous system (CNS) structures after peripheral application or direct injection into brain parenchyma (10, 19). PRV Becker is a highly virulent wild-type laboratory strain of PRV, whereas PRV-Bartha is an attenuated live vaccine strain. Pickard et al. have recently demonstrated that PRV-Bartha is transsynaptically transported in the retrograde direction only (i.e., from postsynaptic to presynaptic neuron) (15) despite earlier claims that after intravitreal injection, PRV-Bartha is transported anterogradely via the optic nerve (8). These observations are supported by recent genetic analyses indicating that due to the deletion of three genes that encode the membrane proteins gI, gE, and Us9, PRV-Bartha might be incapable of anterograde spread through chains of connected neurons (5, 9, 11, 20).
In the initial studies and often continuing to the present, PRV-Bartha-infected neurons have been identified using anti-PRV antibodies and standard immunocytochemical procedures. Although this technique yields excellent labeling with low levels of nonspecific staining and is amenable to electron microscopic analyses, PRV-infected neurons can be identified only after tissue fixation and the somewhat time-consuming and labor-intensive immunocytochemical processing of tissue sections. To eliminate the need for immunocytochemical tissue processing, Smith et al. previously constructed a PRV-Bartha recombinant, PRV152, which expresses the enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) (16). EGFP diffuses throughout PRV152-infected neurons, filling the dendritic arbor completely and the axon to a great extent. The EGFP signal is very strong when viewed under standard epifluorescence light microscopy, and no additional tissue processing is required to visualize infected neurons (15). In addition to being efficient and inexpensive to use, PRV152-labeled neurons can be identified in brain slices in vitro for physiological studies (16). These studies indicate that PRV152 is a powerful tool for the transsynaptic labeling of neurons in defined CNS circuits that allows neurons to be identified in vitro by their expression of EGFP, analyzed electrophysiologically, and described in morphological detail.
It has been recognized for some time that a red fluorescent protein (RFP) would be highly desirable for use in multicolor labeling or fluorescence resonance energy transfer experiments. The RFP cloned from Discosoma coral, drFP583 (commercially known as DsRed), appeared to be a good candidate for a spectrally distinct companion for EGFP (14). However, slow and incomplete maturation and obligate tetramerization have hampered the evolution of DsRed as a useful tool (1, 22). Early attempts to address the rate and/or extent of maturation of DsRed (e.g., DsRed2) have provided only incremental improvements (CLONTECHniques XVI:2-3, 2001; Clontech, Palo Alto, Calif.). However, Tsien and colleagues (7) have recently described a monomeric RFP (mRFP1) derived from a rapidly maturing DsRed derivative, DsRed T1, isolated by Bevis and Glick (2). mRFP1 overcomes three critical problems associated with the wild-type tetramer of DsRed: (i) it is a monomer; (ii) it matures rapidly (about 10 times faster than DsRed); and (iii) the excitation and emission peaks are about 25 nm red shifted from DsRed, conferring greater spectral separation from autofluorescence and having minimal emission when excited at wavelengths optimal for EGFP (7). In addition, mRFP1 does not appear to generate a green intermediate. Although the fluorescence quantum yield and excitation coefficient for mRFP1 are relatively low compared to those of other DsRed variants (7), it holds great potential as a companion to EGFP for multicolor labeling.
In this report we describe the construction and characterization of recombinant PRV-Bartha strains that express a variety of RFPs. Our results indicate that one such recombinant virus, PRV614, which expresses mRFP1, promises to be an ideal companion for PRV152 for dual viral multisynaptic labeling applications.
For all recombinant viruses used in this study, the fluorescent protein expression cassette was inserted into the middle of the gG gene and was under the control of the cytomegalovirus major immediate-early promoter. A double-stranded DNA probe comprised of the PRV-Bartha SalI fragment, which encompasses the entire gG gene, was used to identify hybridizing BamHI genomic fragments from recombinant viruses. All of these recombinant viruses displayed similar hybridization profiles consistent with the expected recombination of the fluorescent protein expression cassette into the PRV-Bartha genome (data not shown).
The utility of RFP-expressing viruses as neuronal tract tracers is dependent on the capacity of viruses to replicate efficiently. All of the recombinant viruses used in the study grew to similar titers and displayed similar growth kinetics on PK15 cell monolayers, indicating that expression of EGFP, DsRed, DsRed2, and mRFP1 has no significant effect on virus replication compared to that seen with the parental PRV-Bartha strain (data not shown).
Differences in the ability to detect cells infected by PRV strains expressing different fluorescent proteins (as determined by fluorescence microscopy) were compared by examining plaques formed on PK15 cell monolayers (Fig. 1A). Consistent with the one-step growth analysis data, all viruses formed plaques of similar sizes (as determined by phase-contrast microscopy) at 17 h postinfection (Fig. 1A, right panels). By contrast, the fluorescence signals detected from cells infected with strains PRV600 (DsRed), PRV613 (DsRed2), PRV614 (mRFP1), and PRV152 (EGFP) differed considerably (Fig. 1A, left panels). At 17 h after infection, 12 random plaques formed by each virus strain were analyzed by fluorescence microscopy (Fig. 1B). An average of 2.3 infected cells expressing DsRed were detected in the center of PRV600 plaques, an average of 15.7 cells expressing DsRed2 were detected in plaques formed by PRV613, and an average of 61.8 cells were detected in plaques formed by PRV614. By comparison, an average of 82.4 cells expressing EGFP were detected at 17 h postinfection in plaques formed by PRV152. Taken together, these data indicate that the development of mRFP1 represents a substantial improvement over DsRed and DsRed2 as a red fluorescent reporter in the context of recombinant PRV infection of tissue culture cells.
![]() View larger version (26K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Detection of infected PK15 cells by microscopy. (A) Fluorescence and phase-contrast images of PK15 cells 17 h after inoculation with strain PRV-Bartha derivatives expressing different fluorescent proteins. Cells were infected with strains PRV600, PRV613, PRV614, and PRV152. In the plaque assay, virus is added to monolayers of susceptible cells at a concentration of roughly 100 PFU per dish. The circular plaque that forms in the monolayer is a result of the spread of virus from a single infected cell to neighboring uninfected cells. PRV600 expresses DsRed, PRV613 expresses DsRed2, PRV614 expresses mRFP1, and PRV152 expresses EGFP. (B) Quantitation of the number of fluorescent cells per plaque at 17 h postinfection. Data were obtained through the analysis of 12 plaques per virus strain tested.
|
![]() View larger version (36K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Coronal sections through the SCN, illustrating a red fluorescent signal at 96 h after inoculation of the right eye with strain PRV-Bartha recombinants. The left panels illustrate the expression of red fluorescent reporters in SCN-infected neurons. The right panels illustrate the same sections stained with an anti-PRV antibody and a secondary antibody conjugated to Alexa-488 (green). Note the absence of a red fluorescent signal in strains PRV600 (top left panel) and PRV613 (middle left panel), whereas virtually all PRV614-infected SCN cells produced a red fluorescent signal (bottom left panel).
|
![]() View larger version (28K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Kinetics of mRFP1 and EGFP expression directed by PRV strains. (A) A coronal section of the PVN 96 h after injection of strain PRV614 into the right eye and strain PRV152 into the left eye as viewed using a Texas Red filter set to identify PRV614-infected neurons (left panel) and an EGFP filter set to identify PRV152-infected neurons (middle panel). The right panel image was captured using a dual-band EGFP-Texas Red filter set to identify PRV614- and PRV152-infected neurons simultaneously. (B) A coronal section of the IGL 96 h after a PRV152/PRV614 cocktail was injected into one eye. Images were captured with a Texas Red filter set (left panel) to identify PRV614-infected neurons and an EGFP filter set (right panel) to identify PRV152-infected neurons. A merged image is shown in the right panel. Approximately 75% of infected IGL neurons were labeled with both viruses. (C) Kinetics of fluorescent protein expression in PK15 cells infected with PRV615. PRV615 was engineered to express both mRFP1 and EGFP. Four images of the same PRV615 plaque are shown: top left panel, EGFP signal; top right panel, mRFP1 signal; bottom left panel, merge of EGFP and mRFP1 signals; bottom right panel, phase-contrast image. Arrowheads point to cells that are EGFP positive and mRFP1 negative.
|
An important issue when considering dual synaptic labeling is the relative rates at which reporters can be detected. To test our ability to detect the fluorescent reporters in cells expressing both EGFP and mRFP1, a new recombinant PRV strain, PRV615, was constructed. PRV615 expresses EGFP from the Us3 locus and mRFP1 from the gG locus located immediately downstream. In PRV615, both fluorescent reporters are under the control of the cytomegalovirus major immediate-early promoter. PRV615 infection of PK15 cells resulted in the formation of plaques that were indistinguishable in size from those formed by strains PRV152, PRV600, PRV613, and PRV614. Figure 3C shows a representative plaque formed by PRV615 at 17 h postinfection. More EGFP-expressing cells than mRFP1-expressing cells were detected per plaque; EGFP expression was detected in the outer ring of cells in the plaque (Fig. 3C), whereas no mRFP1 expression was observed in these cells. The lag between detectable EGFP expression and mRFP1 expression in these cells was typically less than 1.5 h (data not shown).
Studies were also conducted on primary cultures of rat dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons to evaluate the ability of a second virus to infect a cell in which an ongoing infection exists. DRG cells were infected with PRV152 and PRV614 simultaneously and examined 24 and 48 h later. Additionally, DRG cultures were infected first with PRV614 and 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 h later with PRV152 and examined 24 h later. A similar series of experiments was conducted with the order of the virus infections reversed. When both PRV152 and PRV614 were applied simultaneously to DRG cultures, virtually all of the infected DRG cells were found to be double labeled when examined 24 or 48 h after inoculation. When the second virus was applied with a delay of
4 h after the first virus, almost no (
1%) double-labeled DRG cells were observed (Fig. 4A). These data suggest that the late-arriving PRV must arrive at DRG cells less than 4 h after the initial infection to achieve double infection of cells. When the experiment was repeated and cultures were infected simultaneously with both viruses, with PRV614 first followed by PRV152 at 2, 4, and 6 h afterwards or with PRV152 first and then PRV614 at 2, 4, and 6 h afterwards, the results were indistinguishable (Fig. 4B). When the delay between the first and second infections was 6 h, no double-labeled cells were detected. As described above, when the delay between the first and second infections was 4 h, only 1 to 3% of the cells were double labeled. When the delay between the first and second infections was 2 h, 24 to 29% of the cells were double labeled. These data suggest that a significant amount of superinfection inhibition occurs prior to 2 h postinfection of primary rat DRG neurons.
![]() View larger version (18K): [in a new window] |
FIG.4. Analysis of dual viral infection of cultured DRG cells. (A) DRG cells were infected with strains PRV152 and PRV614 simultaneously (top panels), PRV152 4 h prior to PRV614 infection (middle panels), or PRV614 4 h prior to PRV152 infection (bottom panels). The PRV152 signal (left panels), PRV614 signal (center panels), and merged signals (right panels) are shown. (B) Kinetics of superinfection inhibition. DRG cells were infected with strains PRV152 and PRV614 simultaneously, infected with PRV614 2, 4, or 6 h prior to PRV152 infection (closed circles), or infected with PRV152 2, 4, or 6 h prior to PRV614 infection (closed squares). The percentage of double-labeled cells was determined under each set of conditions and plotted as a function of time. A minimum of 196 cells was scored for each data point. Simultaneous infections were performed in duplicate, 2-h-delay experiments were performed in quadruplicate, 4-h-delay experiments were performed in duplicate (with PRV614 infection performed first) or triplicate (PRV152 first), and 6-h-delay experiments were performed in duplicate.
|
Dual viral tracing methods were introduced using variants of PRV-Bartha genetically engineered to express different viral membrane proteins and the reporter ß-galactosidase (12, 13, 18). Using two different PRV-Bartha recombinants, Loewy and colleagues demonstrated the power of this technique by showing that individual hypothalamic neurons provide a dual input to sympathetic preganglionic neurons regulating cardiac and adrenal medullary functions (12). PRV-Bartha recombinants expressing EGFP have also been used in dual viral tracing experiments, in combination with other PRV-Bartha recombinants that required immunocytochemical processing, to differentiate the two antigenically distinct recombinants (3, 21). Although potentially a very valuable technique, the use of the presently available recombinant viruses for dual viral transneuronal tracing is not without pitfalls that must be carefully addressed (19).
For the several different PRV-Bartha recombinants presently in use, different promoters have been used to drive reporter gene expression and, in some cases, the promoters have been inserted into different loci of the viral genome. These differences may affect both virulence and reporter gene expression (13, 17). There are a number of factors that can influence the dual labeling of a single neuron by two different reporter viruses. Depending on the reporter, the promoter used to drive reporter expression, and the site at which the reporter is inserted into the viral genome, the viruses constructed may not be equally fit. When one reporter virus has reduced transport or replication capabilities compared to the second reporter virus, these deficiencies are amplified as the number of neurons in the multisynaptic circuit increases. This may result in the arrival of the more fit virus to the population of neurons under study before the less fit virus arrives. To complicate things further, the rate at which the reporter matures or becomes detectable is also an important consideration. The delayed arrival or detection of the second reporter virus has important ramifications for dual viral tract-tracing experiments.
Prior infection of a cell with one virus has the potential to inhibit subsequent infection by another, a process referred to as superinfection inhibition. Indeed, investigators have shown that BHK cells constitutively expressing the alphaherpesvirus envelope glycoprotein, gD, are resistant to infection by virus (4, 6). This inhibition of infection is thought to occur through gD sequestration of critical herpesvirus receptors. It is likely that other mechanisms for superinfection inhibition downstream of the virus entry pathway also exist. Although the window for double infections is probably small (i.e., on the order of a few hours), there are no data in the literature from studies addressing this issue in an established experimental transsynaptic tracing paradigm in vivo. Data from sensory neurons maintained in vitro as presented in the present report affirm the small temporal window available for dual PRV infections. An additional potential for false-negative data may also result from the differences in sensitivity of the different methods used to detect different reporter proteins (e.g., EGFP fluorescence versus immunocytochemical detection). Fixation parameters, penetration of antibodies into tissue sections, etc., may differentially affect the visualization of different reporter proteins. The ability to differentiate two isogenic PRV-Bartha recombinants solely on the basis of the use of different fluorescent reporters represents a major advance in the development of the potential of dual viral tract tracing.
This work was supported in part by Basil O'Connor Starter Scholar Research Award grant 5-FY00-631 from the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation and NIH grant AI48626 to B.W.B. and NIH grants MH62296 and NS35615 to G.E.P.
|
|
|---|
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»