Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, November 2003, p. 11480-11490, Vol. 77, No. 21
0022-538X/03/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JVI.77.21.11480-11490.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Institute for Gene Therapy and Molecular Medicine,1 Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York,3 Department of Medical Biochemistry, Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden2
Received 9 June 2003/ Accepted 31 July 2003
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Productive AAV replication in vivo, however, is only observed when AAV infects a cell that is simultaneously infected by a helper virus (1). Both adenovirus and herpesviruses may serve as helper viruses. In the absence of coinfection by a helper virus, AAV enters a latent state by integration of its genome into a specific region of chromosome 19 designated the AAVS1 locus. If the latently infected cell is subsequently infected by a helper virus, a copy of the latent AAV genome is released from its chromosomal context and proceeds to replicate (7a). This escape from the chromosome is termed rescue. It has also been shown that a productive infection can be established in cells infected with a helper virus if a cloned copy of the AAV genome is provided in a circular plasmid (11). The release of the AAV genome from the plasmid is thought to be analogous to the release occurring from chromosome 19 in the latently infected cell and has served as an experimental model for rescue. While the ITR is the only cis requirement for rescue, it has been noted that in the absence of the left ITR, rescue from a plasmid vector can occur at the p5 promoter region (18).
Two sorts of mechanism have been proposed to explain rescue: rescue may be carried out by cellular nucleases (7, 11, 13) or it may be coupled to DNA replication (13, 23). It has been suggested that a cellular nuclease of unknown function may catalyze rescue of the AAV genome from a circular plasmid (7). It has been observed that rescue of the AAV genome from a plasmid may be carried out by a Holliday structure-resolving activity in uninfected cellular extracts (19) and in cells (24). It has also been observed that rescue of the AAV genome in a HeLa cell extract is more efficient if the Rep 68 protein is added. Since Rep protein supported replication of AAV DNA in the same extract, this observation lent credibility to the notion that rescue could occur by a replicative mechanism (23). (It has also been suggested that Rep might have the ability to resolve Holliday structures [17].)
The testing of a replication model of rescue is difficult. Full-length AAV genomes will be the product of rescue, independent of which mechanism is used. These genomes will be amplified by DNA replication; one rescue event may, in fact, give rise to thousands of replicating AAV genomes. Additionally, in cells and cellular extracts the presence of recombinases and nucleases makes it difficult to interpret the origin of products and reaction intermediates. However, the development of a biochemically well-defined system for initiation of replication from the AAV origin (21) makes it possible to develop an assay that allows us to measure the number of rescue events and to control the subsequent amplification of the products. In addition, this assay allows the replication-based rescue mechanism to be examined in the complete absence of cellular nucleases. In this report we employ a minimal herpes simplex virus (HSV) initiation system composed of AAV Rep 68, the HSV type 1 (HSV-1) DNA polymerase UL30/UL42, and the HSV-1 single-strand DNA binding protein ICP8 (21) to test for the appearance of DNA molecules which would specifically indicate that rescue dependent on DNA replication has taken place. We show that the initiation of replication can efficiently rescue AAV from a plasmid vector.
|
|
|---|
pR0 was constructed by inserting the BglII-MscI fragment of pL0 (partially digested to contain the whole ITR) into BglII-Msc1-digested pR-8.
pL-5 was constructed from pL0 by BsmB1 digestion followed by mung bean nuclease treatment and religation. pL-22 was constructed from pL0 by BsmB1 and BssH2 digestion (partially digested to retain the major component of the ITR) followed by treatment with the polymerase I Klenow fragment and religation.
Proteins.
HisRep 68 contains six histidine residues fused to the amino-terminal end of the full-length Rep 68 protein (15). It was produced in Escherichia coli from a pET 16b vector (New England Biolabs) and purified according to the manufacturer's instructions. The proteins encoded by the herpes simplex virus UL29, UL30, and UL42 genes were produced from stocks of recombinant Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus and purified as described previously (4, 6). The purity of each protein was
95%, as judged by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis followed by Coomassie blue staining.
DNA replication assay.
Replication rescue assays were performed essentially as described previously (21). The reaction mixture (15 µl) contained 2.7% glycerol, 40 mM HEPES (pH 7.7), 40 mM creatine phosphate (pH 7.7), 7 mM MgCl2, 4 mM ATP, 200 µM (each) CTP, GTP, and UTP, 100 µM (each) dATP, dGTP, and dTTP, 10 µM dCTP, 2 mM dithiothreitol (DTT), and 6 mM potassium glutamate. It also contained 2.0 µg of creatine phosphokinase and 10.0 µg of bovine serum albumin. In addition, 5 µCi of [
-32P]dCTP (3,000 Ci/µmol; Amersham) was added to selected reactions.
The reaction also contained 6,000 fmol of the UL29 protein, 750 fmol of the UL30/UL42 complex, and 700 fmol of HisRep 68. The reaction was incubated at 37°C for 4 h.
The Rep-only separation assay was performed as described above except that the HSV proteins were omitted and replaced by their storage buffers as follows: 10% glycerol, 20 mM HEPES, NaOH (to pH 7.6), 0.5 mM EDTA (pH 8.0), 2 mM DTT, and 300 mM NaCl for the UL29 protein and 10% glycerol, 20 mM HEPES, NaOH (to pH 7.6), 0.5 mM EDTA (pH 8.0), 2 mM DTT, and 200 mM NaCl for the UL30/UL42 complex. The reactions were incubated at 37°C for 4 h.
Both assays were terminated by the addition of 50 µl of digestion buffer (20 mM HEPES [pH 7.5], 10 mM KCl, 10 mM EDTA, 1.0% SDS, 50 mM NaCl). Products were passed through a Sephadex 50 spin column and then digested with proteinase K at 1 mg/ml for 2 h at 50°C. Aliquots of the products were separated by electrophoresis on 0.8% agarose gels with Tris-borate-EDTA buffer. Gels were dried and either stained with SYBR green or processed for autoradiography. The SYBR green data were collected by Phosphorimager (Molecular Dynamics) scanning of the dried gels with ImageQuant 1.1 software.
Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. For two-dimensional gel electrophoresis, nondenaturing gel electrophoresis was performed in a 0.8% agarose gel with Tris-borate-EDTA buffer; for the second, denaturing dimension, lanes were excised and transferred to a 0.8% gel containing 1 mM EDTA and 40 mm NaOH. The gels were equilibrated for 90 min in the denaturing buffer prior to electrophoresis.
Hybridization of gels. Dried gels were rehydrated in water and incubated briefly in a prehybridization solution made up of 6x SSCP (0.72 M NaCl, 0.09 M Na citrate, 0.08 M KH2PO4, and 0.012 M EDTA [pH 6.8]), 0.3% SDS, and 0.2 mg of salmon sperm DNA per ml. A nick-translated probe of 32P-radiolabeled pLO was added for a 16-h hybridization. Hybridized gels were washed briefly in 6x SSCP with 0.5% SDS. Gels were redried and exposed to film.
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (11K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Diagram of model showing rescue by fold-back replication. (A) The substrate is a linearized AAV genome-carrying plasmid such that wild-type AAV sequences are juxtaposed to vector sequences immediately adjacent to the AAV ITR. Rep nicks at the TRS (small box). A replication complex is assembled and replication commences through the ITR towards the vector (B). The template ITR sequences fold into a hairpin conformation, displacing the replicating strand (C1). The replicating strand may base pair with the displaced strand (C2) and then replicate to its end (C3), at which point helicase activity can dissociate this duplex, allowing the folding up of the replicating strand and replication back into AAV sequences (D and E). Alternatively, if replication has progressed sufficiently, i.e., passed through the b and c palindromes, the replicating strand can fold upon itself immediately (D) and replicate back into AAV sequences. Also shown is the structure left behind after either mechanism of fold-back replication (F). ITR sequences are designated by thick lines.
|
![]() View larger version (7K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Diagram of substrate L0 (L-2 is essentially equivalent). pL0 linearized by EcoRI digestion to form a 4,000-bp molecule is shown. The vector and AAV components are indicated. Box, AAV ITR; thick line, non-ITR AAV sequences; dashed arrow, origin and direction of replication initiation.
|
![]() View larger version (112K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Incubation of linearized substrate with proteins from the HSV-AAV replication complex. Products were separated on a 0.8% agarose gel and visualized by SYBR green staining. Shown are the addition of Rep 68 and the products of the HSV UL29, UL 30, and UL42 genes. S, starting substrate; A, AAV component of the substrate; V, vector component of the substrate; H, putative hybrid double- and single-stranded species. Shown on the right are DNA size markers (SM).
|
![]() View larger version (49K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Analysis of putative hybrid molecule. (a) Shown in the left panel is an autoradiogram of an assay with L0 substrate and all four proteins. The horizontal dimension shows separation in a 0.8% agarose gel under native conditions. The vertical dimension shows subsequent separation under denaturing conditions. On the horizontal axis, the species seen on a native gel are indicated. S, substrate; H, hybrid; V, vector; Vs, single-stranded vector; A, AAV. On the vertical axis, the three denatured components are indicated. FL, full-length substrate; VL, vector length; AL, AAV length. The right panel is an autoradiogram made by hybridizing the same gel with a probe synthesized from L0. (b) Autoradiogram showing mung bean nuclease (MBN) digestion of the products of an assay separated on a 0.8% agarose gel. (c) Schematic showing substrate and hybrid molecules, with the ITR designated by a thick line and the putative single-stranded region of the hybrid designated by a dashed line. Below is a diagram showing the locations of the PpuMI, SmaI, and BglI restriction sites in the substrate molecule and the hybrid molecule. Also diagrammed is a hairpin loop ITR showing the recognition sites of BglI and SmaI in the ITR. The thick dashed lines indicate the derivation of the potential 980- and 1,268-bp products from BglI digestion of the hybrid species. KS472 indicates the BglI site at nucleotide 472 in the vector backbone, pBluescript. (d) Autoradiogram showing PpuMI, SmaI, and BglI restriction digestion products separated on a 0.8% agarose gel. In this gel system the double- and single-stranded species between 800 and 1,500 bases migrate almost indistinguishably. The arrow indicates the BglI-digested hybrid species at 980 bp. SM, size marker.
|
A question raised with respect to rescue by replication is the relative likelihood of fold-back replication at the ITR versus the replication complex passing through the ITR without rescue. When DNA replication passes through the ITR without rescue, a displaced single-stranded vector-length species, Vs, is produced. Each fold-back replication, on the other hand, will produce one hybrid molecule including a vector-length component (VL component of the H species). Our results from the hybridization experiment (Fig. 4a, right panel) show that the amounts of these two products are approximately equivalent, suggesting that the two reactions occur with equal probability under our experimental conditions. This implies that the rescued AAV (A in Fig. 3, for example) is about equally the product of rescue by replication and of the Rep-only separation mechanism. Since the amounts of the A component in lanes 1 and 3 (Fig. 3) are similar, a further implication is that as rescue by replication has increased, Rep-only separation has decreased.
To further analyze the structure of the H component, we used mung bean nuclease to digest single- but not double-stranded DNA. As expected, the hybrid molecule disappears but the double-stranded starting substrate and vector species do not (Fig. 4b). (We reproducibly also lost some of the substrate and vector material in our mung bean nuclease digestion reactions, but after overexposure [not shown] hybrid molecules remained undetectable in the digested lane.) This suggests that mung bean nuclease digestion removes the single-stranded AAV component, producing a DNA species migrating as the vector component. We also used restriction enzyme analyses to locate the transition between double-stranded and single-stranded DNA. Our model for rescue by replication suggests that it occurs at the TRS. Enzymes with restriction sites in the vector, i.e., double-stranded, portion of the hybrid digest both the substrate and the hybrid species (data not shown). On the other hand, enzymes, e.g., PpuMI, whose restriction sites are located in the AAV portion of the hybrid digest, as expected, the substrate but not the hybrid species (Fig. 4c and d). The model predicts that the ITR, except for the D region, should be in the double-stranded portion of the hybrid molecule. SmaI, whose recognition site is in the ITR, does digest the hybrid species (Fig. 4d). However, an SmaI site might be created when the single-stranded form of the ITR is in the hairpin conformation. In this case, the SmaI site will be in a short double-stranded region (Fig. 4c). Control experiments did not reveal SmaI cleavage of single-stranded substrates (results not shown). Thus, SmaI digestion suggests that the ITR in the H component exists as fully double-stranded DNA rather than as one single-stranded hairpin loop.
For an additional demonstration that the ITR is indeed double stranded in the hybrid molecules, we employed the restriction enzyme BglI. This enzyme has several sites in the substrate, including one site in the ITR (Fig. 4c). The BglI recognition site in the ITR is, however, not encompassed by one linear segment in the hairpin conformation of the ITR (Fig. 4c). Therefore, an ITR hairpin loop cannot be cleaved by BglI. BglI will digest the double-stranded substrate species at position 537 in the AAV part of L0 but leave the hybrid molecule undigested. If this hybrid molecule can be digested by BglI at position 76 in the ITR, a 980-bp fragment will be produced, but if the enzyme fails to digest the molecule at position 76 because the ITR is single stranded, a fragment of 1,268 bp will be formed due to digestion at position 472 in the pBluescript vector. As seen in Fig. 4d, a fragment of approximately 980 bp is present while there is no fragment of 1,268 bp. XmnI digestion was included to eliminate another BglI fragment in this size range. This result also demonstrates that in the hybrid molecule the ITR segment is double stranded rather than single stranded.
Generation of the hybrid molecule H requires DNA synthesis. The model for rescue by replication states that the H component, the hybrid molecule, is not comprised of DNA synthesized during the rescue reaction but that its formation is due to DNA synthesis. To test this prediction, we performed three parallel assays. In each case, the L0 substrate and all four proteins, Rep 68, UL29, and the UL30/UL42 complex, were present. For one assay, a complete set of four deoxynucleoside triphosphates was included, and for two other assays, one deoxynucleoside triphosphate, either dCTP or dGTP, was omitted. As shown in Fig. 5, the hybrid molecule H was produced only when all four deoxynucleoside triphosphates were supplied. (It should be pointed out that while the vector component of the hybrid molecule does not become labeled during the rescue-by-replication reaction, it can become labeled prior to this reaction. If replication initiates but passes through the ITR without rescue, an identical substrate molecule will be recreated except that the vector sequences on the nickable strand will now be labeled.)
![]() View larger version (76K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. SYBR green-stained 0.8% agarose gel of reaction products demonstrating that generation of the hybrid molecule requires DNA synthesis. Lane SM, size marker; lane , standard assay with all four deoxynucleoside triphosphates; lane -dCTP, standard assay with three deoxynucleoside triphosphates, with dCTP omitted; lane -dGTP, standard assay with three deoxynucleoside triphosphates, with dGTP omitted.
|
![]() View larger version (26K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. Rescued product is of the expected structure. (a) Diagram showing MscI restriction sites in L0 and L-2 as well as in the rescued hairpin loop. The arrow indicates the origin and direction of DNA synthesis. The thick line designates the ITR. (b) Autoradiogram of products separated on a formamide-urea-polyacrylamide gel. Shown are products of assays with L0 and L-2 either undigested or digested with MscI just prior to gel electrophoresis. The arrow indicates the 117-bp band. Also seen is a faint band at 90 bases in lanes 3 and 4. SM, size marker.
|
Partially deleted ITR results in reduced amounts of hybrid molecule. As shown in Fig. 1, it is possible that efficient rescue is dependent upon the length of the stem formed by annealing of the a and a' regions. In wild-type AAV, this region is 42 nt long. According to our model, displacement of the replicating strand should occur while replication is copying either the a or the a' region, i.e., the components of the stem, in order to produce a complete ITR. A reduction in the length of the stem would reduce the regions over which this transition can productively occur. In addition, a shorter a region may lessen the tendency of the single-stranded template to refold into a hairpin structure.
To test this prediction, we compared three substrates with different terminal deletions of AAV (Fig. 7a). L0 contains the full ITR. L-5 and L-22 are missing the outermost 5 and 22 bases from the ITR (i.e., the outer component of the stem-forming region), respectively. They were constructed by deleting these regions from the parental plasmid pL0. Rescue experiments were performed to examine how the ITR deletions affect rescue by replication. The fraction of substrate converted to the hybrid species was only marginally reduced when L-5 was used as substrate, but it was reduced by more than 80% when using the L-22 substrate (Fig. 7b). (An alternative explanation to this result might be that binding of Rep 68 to the newly synthesized and folded-over hairpin loop may be required before synthesis is resumed. This binding might be reduced since the 22-nt deletion eliminates a part of the Rep binding site.) In contrast, the amount of the V species, the vector part, was not reduced by these deletions in the ITR. The vector species is only produced by the Rep-only rescue mechanism. It seems that the Rep-only mechanism is not dependent on the missing sequences.
![]() ![]() ![]() View larger version (206K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 7. Terminally deleted ITRs result in less production of hybrid species and fewer replicated AAV species. (a) Schematic of potential hairpin structures of L0 and L-22 substrates. The thick line denotes the ITR sequence. (b) SYBR green staining of products from an assay with L0, L-5, and L-22 substrates which were separated on a 0.8% agarose gel, showing reduced hybrid formation with terminally deleted ITRs. (c) Left panel, SYBR green staining of products of an assay with L0 and L-22 substrates. Right panel, an autoradiograph of the same gel showing relatively greater incorporation into the AAV species in the L0 substrate. S, full-length substrate; H, hybrid species; V, vector component; A, AAV component. SM, size marker.
|
Partially deleted ITRs result in greater amounts of Rep-only separation. We have examined directly how the efficiency of the Rep-only mechanism is affected by deletions in the AAV ITR. We compared L0 and L-22 as well as R0 and R-8. The latter pair was created by cloning the right side of pAV2, including the right ITR, into pBluescript plasmids. The linearized substrate R0 contains a complete ITR, while R-8 is missing the outermost 8 bases of the ITR. The plasmid sequences at the vector-ITR junction are identical in these two substrates. We performed assays in which the substrates were incubated with only the Rep protein, i.e., the three HSV-1 replication proteins were omitted, as in the assay shown in Fig. 3, lane 3. Products of these assays were separated on agarose gels that were subsequently stained with SYBR green. Shown in Fig. 8 are graphs of these gels. (In the R0 and R-8 clones the AAV component is much larger and so is present on the gel as a larger fragment than the vector component. In L0 and L-22, the AAV component, being only 1,000 bp long, has migrated too far to the right and so is off the graph). In the constructs from both the left and the right ITRs, the partially deleted ITR shows increased amounts of Rep-only separation, as measured by the relative amounts of vector component, in comparison to the full-length ITR. This is precisely the reverse of the replication rescue assay, in which the deleted ITR demonstrates greatly reduced amounts of rescue.
![]() View larger version (18K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 8. Deleted ITRs result in greater amounts of Rep-only rescue. Shown are graphs from SYBR green staining of 0.8% agarose gels in which assay products were separated. In each case, higher-molecular-weight material is to the left and lower-molecular-weight material is to the right. Substrates were incubated with Rep for 4 h (HSV proteins omitted) and then separated by electrophoresis on agarose gels. L0, left ITR with no missing bases; L-22, left ITR with terminal 22 bases missing; R0, right ITR with no bases missing; R-8, right ITR with 8 terminal bases missing. S, full-length substrate; V, vector component; A, AAV component.
|
|
|
|---|
The observation of an efficient Rep-only mechanism leading to separation of vector from AAV sequences is intriguing and deserves further study. At present we do not know how the Rep-only separation (which requires that both strands be cut) is accomplished, and we cannot rule out the possibility that a factor copurifying with Rep plays a role. We have no evidence that the AAV genomes released by this mechanism have their ITRs sufficiently intact to serve as substrates for replication initiation. The observation that Rep-only separation is enhanced with defective ITRs, i.e., ITRs which we have shown will not undergo efficient rescue by replication (Fig. 7), suggests a possible role for Rep-only separation that is complementary to that for rescue by replication.
These results suggest the following model for rescue of the AAV genome from a plasmid vector and by analogy from its integrated state in the human genome (Fig. 9). DNA replication initiates at a nick introduced by Rep in the ITR of an integrated copy of the AAV genome. As replication passes through the ITR, the newly replicated strand is displaced due to self-annealing by the now single-stranded template strand. Replication will subsequently turn back by a fold-back mechanism, producing a hairpin loop with a complete ITR. If the ITR at the other end of the genome is intact, it can lead to rescue by the same mechanism. In cases in which the distal ITR is defective (which is apparently frequently the case in latently infected cells), the AAV genome can be rescued by the as yet poorly characterized Rep-only mechanism. In that instance, the product will be an AAV genome with a complete hairpin ITR at one end and a truncated ITR at the other end. Nicking of this structure at the complete ITR followed by strand separation (22) will permit the formation of a panhandle structure. The complete copy of the ITR, the product of rescue by replication, can be used as a template to synthesize a second complete copy of the ITR on the truncated strand as has been previously proposed (12).
![]() View larger version (11K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 9. Model of rescue of the AAV genome from plasmid or human genomic sequences. See text for explanation. AAV sequences are denoted by thick lines.
|
It is possible that the Rep-dependent replication might serve as the predominant rescue mechanism in vivo for two reasons. Firstly, it is an efficient mechanism which has the capacity to replace missing nucleotides at the AAV-plasmid junction by copying them from the inner region of the ITR. Secondly, there is little absolute dependence upon cellular proteins such as a putative Holliday structure-resolving enzyme. The only proteins that would be strictly required would be a minimal DNA synthesis machinery and the AAV Rep protein, the very same factors needed for the subsequent productive replication.
Rescue may also occur by non-Rep-dependent mechanisms. For example, rescue by an unidentified Holliday structure-resolving activity has been observed both in cell extracts and in intact cells (19, 24). A key point about Rep-dependent rescue, however, is that it would only occur in latently infected cells when the Rep protein is expressed, i.e., when the cell is infected by a helper virus. Rescue by a non-Rep-dependent or non-helper-dependent mechanism would seem an unlikely choice for a principle rescue mechanism, since rescue could then occur when productive replication of AAV was not possible. In our experiments we have used HSV-1 replication enzymes. It would be of great interest to know if a similar reaction could be carried out by cellular replication enzymes as when adenovirus is the helper virus. We believe that this is likely. The original observation that Rep increased rescue was made in an extract in which the replication machinery was of cellular origin (23). Interestingly, it has been found that the addition of the adenovirus DNA binding protein, Ad-DBP, to a HeLa extract greatly increased the apparent fold-back replication in that system compared to the human single-stranded binding protein RPA (20). Perhaps Ad-DBP might permit refolding of the single-stranded AAV ITR and therefore be more efficient at promoting the rescue of the AAV genome. However, it cannot be stated with certainty that rescue occurred by fold-back replication in that report. Therefore, further experiments are needed to determine the mechanism by which Ad-DBP facilitates rescue of integrated AAV genomes.
Apart from the basic enzymatic requirements, there are almost certainly additional processes that play significant roles in control of rescue of AAV genomes. The replication rescue assays for this report were performed with the left ITR only. The same assays performed with the right ITR demonstrate less rescue by fold-back replication (data not shown). This result is reminiscent of results by Bohenzky and Berns in which substrates with ITR mutations demonstrated some ascendance of the left ITR over the right ITR in cell-based replication rescue assays (2) and suggests a possible involvement of internal AAV sequences. In the chromosomal context, the accessibility of the integrated AAV genome, nearby transcriptional activity, etc., would be expected to affect rescue. These processes will be determined by cellular factors and sequences proximal to the chromosome 19 integration site (5). It may be that the AAVS1 region is a site which allows easy rescue of the AAV genome. It has been noted by Gottlieb and Muzyczka (7) that production of virus from an AAV genome integrated at AAVS1 is substantially greater than that from the same copy number of transfected plasmid. An interesting suggestion by these workers is that the difference in virus production may in part reflect a difference in rescue efficiency. Understanding the rescue mechanisms of the AAV and recombinant AAV genomes from plasmids may help in recombinant AAV production.
The above observation and mechanism seem consistent with previously reported observations of rescue in cellular assays using plasmid constructs. In particular, it has been observed that rescue could correct missing AAV bases at the AAV-vector junction (13, 14). In a second observation related to rescue, Samulski et al. noted an eightfold decrease in the production of virus in an ITR construct with a deletion of 13 bases (pSUB201) compared with one containing full-length ITRs (pSM620) (12). The mechanism of this report can explain why a large deletion of terminal bases would lead to reduced rescue. Finally, this assay suggests an explanation as to why previous attempts to separate rescue from replication may have been unsuccessful. The initiation of replication at an embedded ITR seems designed to automatically result in rescue.
|
|
|---|
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»