Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, March 2005, p. 3775-3786, Vol. 79, No. 6
0022-538X/05/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JVI.79.6.3775-3786.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,1 Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania2
Received 29 June 2004/ Accepted 31 October 2004
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Retroviral late domains, first described over 15 years ago, are believed to function by usurping a set of cellular protein complexes known as ESCRTs, the normal task of which is to promote the budding of small vesicles into the lumen of the multivesicular body (MVB, or the vacuole in Saccharomyces cerevisiae). MVBs are specialized endocytic organelles that fuse with or become lysosomes (for reviews, see references 6, 20, and 30). Mono-ubiquitination is one of the signals used to target proteins to this pathway (20). Budding into the MVB, which is topologically and functionally similar to the budding of retroviruses, has been extensively studied in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and requires at least 17 genes for proper formation. Deletion of any one of these 17 genes in yeast results in the formation of a malformed late endosome called a class E compartment (20). The ESCRT proteins, which are encoded by 10 of these genes, form three distinct complexes, ESCRT I, II, and III, that act sequentially to form the budding MVB vesicle.
Three distinct categories of retroviral late domains with apparently distinct mechanisms of recruiting ESCRTs to retroviral budding sites have been described. The equine infectious anemia virus (EIAV) late domain, with core sequence YPDL (29), interacts with the protein AIP1 (37, 41). The yeast homologue of AIP1, Bro1, is also one of the 17 class E compartment genes and interacts with both ESCRT I and ESCRT III (41). Rous sarcoma virus (RSV), murine leukemia virus (MLV), and human T-cell leukemia virus utilize a late domain with the consensus sequence PPXY (43-45), which interacts with WW domains of E3 ubiquitin ligases (14, 21). Though ubiquitination appears to be an important step in ESCRT action, it is currently not clear how the E3 ubiquitin ligase ties in with the ESCRT complexes. The most extensively studied retroviral late domain is the PTAP sequence in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) Gag p6 (12, 17), which binds the ESCRT I protein TSG101 (Vps 23 in yeast) (9, 40). The N-terminal portion of TSG101 contains a ubiquitin E2 variant domain that is capable of simultaneously binding ubiquitin and PTAP (9, 38). Overexpression of the N-terminal portion of TSG101 effectively blocks the budding of viruses dependent on a PTAP late domain but does not affect other retroviruses (11, 34). In contrast, overexpressing full-length TSG101 or the C-terminal half of TSG101 (TSG-3') blocks the budding of HIV-1 (referred to hereinafter as HIV) Gag as well as the PPPY L domain-containing MLV Gag but not the YPDL-containing EIAV Gag. It was speculated that TSG-3' acts by disrupting the cellular endosomal sorting machinery (11), but this hypothesis does not explain why viruses with YPDL late domains appear to be immune to the effects of TSG-3'.
The objective of this study was to determine whether TSG-3' expression blocks RSV budding and, if so, where that block occurs. We found that TSG-3' expression decreases RSV budding. Surprisingly, in cells expressing TSG-3', RSV Gag, but not HIV Gag, was efficiently recruited along with TSG-3' into nonendocytic aggresome-like structures in the cytoplasm of cells. Although most of the ESCRT machinery was not recruited to these structures, they were highly enriched in wild-type TSG101 as well as ubiquitin. Depletion of either one of these proteins may explain why TSG-3' blocks only certain retroviruses from budding.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Vectors.
Plasmids expressing N-terminally hemagglutinin (HA)-tagged TSG101 or HA-tagged TSG-3' were provided by Eric Freed (11). Yellow fluorescent protein (YFP)-TSG-3' was created by subcloning the SalI/BamHI fragment from TSG-3' (excluding the HA tag) into the same sites in the vector pEYFP-C1 (Clontech). RSV Gag-green fluorescent protein (GFP), p
NC-GFP [RSV Gag(
NC)-GFP], and Super M-GFP [RSV Gag(SM)-GFP] have been described previously (4, 5). pGag() (RSV Gag) and pPPPY-A.GFP [RSV Gag(
L)-GFP] also have been described previously (36). RSV Gag(
L) (without GFP) was created by introducing the stop codon TAA after the last codon of RSV NC in RSV Gag(
L)-GFP. T10C-GFP [RSV Gag(T10C)] was described previously (28). HIV Gag-GFP was provided by Marilyn Resh (15). HIV Gag(G2A)-GFP, HIV Gag(G2A,
GH)-YFP, and GFP-VPS28 were provided by Paul Bieniasz. HRH-GFP was created by mutagenic PCR and replaces the CA-SP1 sequence of HIV Gag-GFP (15) with the RSV sequence that includes the last 25 residues of p10, all of CA, and all of SP. The forward primers over the junction sequences were as follows: HIV MA+RSV p10 (ACAGCCAGGTCAGCCAAAATTACCCTGGGCCGGCCCTGACTGACT) and RSV SP+HIV NC (ATCCAGCCCTTAATTATGATGCAGAGAGGCAATTTTAGG). RHR-GFP was created by mutagenic PCR and replaces the CA-SP sequence of RSV Gag-GFP (5) with the CA-SP1 sequence of HIV. The forward primers over the junction sequences were as follows: RSV p10-HIV CA (CTGGTCCGCCCGTGGTGGCCATGCCTATAGTGCAGAACATCCAGG) and HIV SP1+RSV NC (CAAATTCAGCTACCATAATGGCAGTAGTCAATAGAGAGAGGG). MLV Gag-YFP, TGN38-YFP, Lamp1-YFP, and DsRed-CD63 were provided by Walter Mothes (35). Rab5-GFP, Rab7-GFP, and Rab11-GFP were created by Craig Roy and provided by Gary Whittaker (13). Rab9-GFP was created by Suzanne Pfeffer and provided by Gary Whittaker (1). Rab4-GFP was created by Ruth Collins and provided by Gary Whittaker. Golgi-GFP, DsRed-ER, and peroxisome-GFP were purchased from Clontech. GFP-ubiquitin was created by subcloning the NheI/ApaI fragment of pEGFP-C2 (Clontech) into the same sites in Gag-Ub (28) and contains GFP followed by the 76 amino acids of ubiquitin followed by 4 amino acids. The parallel construct GFP-ubiquitin75 contains a stop codon after the 75th amino acid of ubiquitin, thereby deleting the C-terminal glycine residue. GFP-250 was provided by Elizabeth Sztul (7). CHMP1-YFP, CHMP2A-DsRed, CHMP3-YFP, CHMP4B-DsRed, and CHMP6-YFP were provided by Wesley Sundquist (41). GFP-human VPS4 (hVPS4) and GFP-hVPS4(EQ) were provided by Philip Woodman (2).
Budding assays. The budding of RSV Gag in the presence or absence of TSG-3' was analyzed by radiolabeling transfected cells for 2.5 h with an L-[35S]methionine-cysteine mix (50 µCi, >1,000 Ci/mmol) 24 h after transfection. Viral proteins were immunoprecipitated from detergent-lysed cells and particles by using a polyclonal rabbit serum against whole RSV, as previously described (42). Immunoprecipitates were separated in sodium dodecyl sulfate-12% polyacrylamide gels, which were subsequently dried and exposed to Kodak X-Omat AR5 X-ray film. Gag proteins were also quantitated by PhosphorImager (Molecular Dynamics) analysis. The budding efficiency was calculated as the amount of Gag in the medium divided by the total amount in the cell lysate and medium.
Reagents and fluorescence imaging. FM4-64, Lysotracker red, DAPI (4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole), and Mitotracker all were purchased from Molecular Probes. Monoclonal anti-HA (Sigma) was diluted 1:1,000 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Polyclonal anti-GFP (Clontech) was diluted 1:500 in PBS. Tetramethyl rhodamine isothiocyanate- or fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated anti-mouse and Cy5-conjugated anti-rabbit (Jackson Laboratories) antibodies were diluted 1:50 in PBS. DF-1 cells were fixed 12 to 20 h posttransfection with 3.7% formaldehyde for 15 min, permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X-100 for 15 min, and blocked with 4% bovine serum albumin for 1 h prior to antibody staining. Primary- and secondary-antibody staining were each performed for 1 h at room temperature. Cells were viewed using a Cetus UltraView spinning disk confocal microscope (Perkin Elmer).
Correlative SEM. DF-1 cells were plated and transfected on coverslips with grids (MatTek Corporation). Cells were fixed 12 to 20 h posttransfection with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS for 15 min. After fluorescence images were captured and the locations of individual cells on the grid were recorded, cells were fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.2 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.2), postfixed with 2% osmium tetroxide (Electron Microscopy Sciences), dehydrated through a graded series of ethanol washes, critical-point dried, and sputter coated with gold-palladium. The same individual cells were located and visualized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) by using a model LEO 1550 field emission SEM at 3 kV. In most cases, multiple digital images were captured at the same magnification and pasted together using Adobe Photoshop. The procedure for visualizing TSG-3' compartments was adapted from a previously described protocol (39). The plasma membranes of live cells were stripped by treating cells with 1% Triton X-100 in PEM (100 mM PIPES [pH 6.9], 0.5 mM MgCl2, 1 mM EGTA, 4% polyethylene glycol [molecular weight, 3,350; Sigma]). After the cells were washed three times with PEM, the actin cytoskeleton was disrupted by incubating cells in a 15-µg/ml concentration of the F-actin-severing protein villin (kindly provided by Anthony Bretscher) in PEM-2 mM CaCl2 for 30 min at room temperature. Cell remains were then fixed with 3.7% formaldehyde in PBS for 15 min, imaged, and processed for SEM as described above.
Thin-section EM. DF-1 cells were transfected with a 1:1 ratio of YFP-TSG-3'-RSV Gag. Fourteen hours posttransfection, cells were trypsinized, fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS, and sorted by fluorescence-activated cell sorting into fluorescent and nonfluorescent cells. After being sorted, both populations of cells were fixed and prepared for electron microscopy (EM) as described above through the ethanol washes and then embedded in pure SPURR plastic (Electron Microscopy Sciences). Both populations of cells were thin sectioned and viewed on a Morgagni transmission electron microscope (TEM).
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
L)] (Fig. 1). As expected, the amount of Gag-GFP(
L) released from transfected cells was only about 10% of that of Gag-GFP (Fig. 2A). To determine where this block was occurring, cells were transfected with a 9:1 molar ratio of Gag(
L)-Gag(
L)-GFP and the same individual cells were visualized first by confocal microscopy and then by SEM (Fig. 2B and C). Although Gag-GFP alone buds at a rate similar to that of wild-type Gag (5, 23), we have found that it forms morphologically aberrant virus particles if it is not coexpressed with excess wild-type Gag protein (unpublished data). The majority of Gag(
L)-GFP appeared by confocal microscopy to have accumulated on the plasma membranes of transfected cells. SEM images of the same cells verified that the fluorescent spots observed by confocal microscopy directly correlated with virus particles accumulated on the surfaces of transfected cells.
|
|
Because retroviral late domains are believed to interact with the ESCRT machinery, which includes TSG101, we hypothesized that recruitment of RSV Gag to TICS occurred through its PPPY late domain. However, when Gag(
L)-GFP [plus RSV Gag(
L)] was cotransfected with TSG-3', Gag(
L)-GFP still accumulated in the TICS (Fig. 2G). In these cells a greater proportion of the Gag(
L)-GFP protein was found on the plasma membrane, and the Gag(
L)-GFP in the plasma membrane directly corresponded with properly budding or budding-arrested virus (Fig. 2H). Thus, recruitment to TICS is not dependent upon a functional L domain.
HIV Gag does not accumulate in TICS. It has been reported previously that overexpression of TSG-3' forms large cytoplasmic structures, but Gag proteins were not observed inside them (10, 11). Immunofluorescence staining against TSG-3' yielded the same ring-like staining of the compartments as has been previously described, and the staining verified that RSV Gag-GFP was in the same compartment as the TSG-3' protein (Fig. 3A to C). To determine whether other retroviral Gag proteins are recruited to these compartments, cotransfections of TSG-3' with RSV Gag-GFP, HIV Gag-GFP, or MLV Gag-YFP were performed. HIV Gag-GFP was entirely excluded from the TICS (Fig. 3D). MLV Gag-GFP was recruited to the TICS, though the amount of Gag in the TICS varied more than with RSV.
|
No single domain in Gag modulates recruitment to TICS. Recruitment to TICS probably involves protein-protein interactions, and therefore we sought to determine what sequence in RSV participated in these interactions. To address this question, we made two chimeric proteins in which the CA domains of RSV and HIV were exchanged (Fig. 1). HRH-GFP replaces CA-SP1 of HIV with CA-SP of RSV plus the 25 amino acids of p10 adjacent to CA, which are known to be required for proper spherical assembly of RSV (18, 19). RHR-GFP replaces CA-SP of RSV with CA-SP1 of HIV (Fig. 1). Both RHR and HRH can assemble into proper spherical particles and both RHR-GFP and HRH-GFP produce a punctate pattern in transfected cells similar to that of wild-type Gag-GFPs (data not shown). When cotransfected with TSG-3', HRH was efficiently recruited to TICS (Fig. 3G), initially suggesting that a sequence in RSV CA was important for this effect. However, RHR-GFP also was efficiently recruited to the TICS (Fig. 3H). The only sequence shared between RHR and HRH is the 25 amino acids of RSV p10 adjacent to CA, a sequence which also contains the Crm1-dependent nuclear export sequence (32). To determine whether this stretch of amino acid residues is responsible for the recruitment to TICS, we cotransfected TSG-3' with RSV Gag(T10C)-GFP, a deletion construct missing the entire region surrounding the 25 amino acids (Fig. 1 and 3I). RSV Gag(T10C)-GFP also accumulated in TICS. Taken together, these experiments demonstrate that no single amino acid sequence in Gag controls recruitment to, or exclusion from, TICS.
Recruitment to TICS does not require membrane binding.
RSV and HIV Gag proteins differ in their interactions with membranes. Whereas HIV Gag must be N-terminally myristylated for membrane association (3), RSV Gag appears to interact with membranes only electrostatically (5). This difference, combined with the observation that rapidly budding RSV Gag(SM) is not found in TICS, led us to hypothesize that recruitment of Gag proteins to TICS is a consequence of slower membrane association. To test this hypothesis, we cotransfected TSG-3' with three different vectors encoding Gag proteins with weakened membrane associations. The first two were nonmyristylated forms of HIV Gag-GFP, one containing a point mutation eliminating the myristylation site [HIV Gag(G2A)-GFP] and the other containing this mutation plus a deletion of the globular head of MA [HIV Gag(G2A,
GH)-YFP] (Fig. 1 and 3J to K). Both of these proteins formed cytoplasmic aggregates, but neither was recruited to TICS. The third Gag construct was RSV Gag(
NC)-GFP, which does not multimerize or associate with membranes (Fig. 3L) (4). This protein was recruited to TICS but less efficiently than the wild type, since a portion of Gag-GFP remained diffuse in the cytoplasm. We interpret these experiments to mean that recruitment to TICS is not a consequence of delayed membrane association.
TICS cannot be stained internally with antibodies. Although multiple GFP-tagged proteins were excluded from TICS, we wanted to rule out the possibility that the recruitment of RSV Gag-GFP to TICS was caused by the GFP tag itself. Surprisingly, diverse polyclonal antibodies to RSV Gag and Gag-GFP failed to stain either protein inside the TICS (data not shown). Because RSV Gag-GFP could be seen inside the TICS, it appeared that the antibodies could not penetrate these structures even after permeablization with Triton X-100. Antibody exclusion was most apparent when immunofluorescence staining was performed against the protein GFP-hVPS(EQ) (a dominant negative class E protein, discussed below) which localizes both to the interior of TICS and to the outside of other non-TSG-3' vesicles. A large portion of GFP-hVPS4(EQ) was found to accumulate in the interior of TICS (Fig. 4A and B). However, when the same cells were stained with an antibody against GFP, only the GFP excluded from the TICS was labeled with antibody (Fig. 4C). In this instance the antibody did not even stain GFP at the outer rim of the TICS, which is delineated by TSG-3'. Only GFP-expressing cells were recognized by the GFP antibody, eliminating background fluorescence as an explanation. It therefore appears that some TICS-associated proteins (such as TSG-3') are present throughout the TICS and that other TICS-associated proteins [such as VPS4(EQ)-GFP] are found only at the interior of the structure. In support of this notion, an N-terminally YFP-tagged TSG-3' protein efficiently induced the formation of TICS, but the YFP tag was distributed equally through the structures and not just at the outer edge (Fig. 4D). We therefore hypothesize that antibodies are fully excluded from the interior of TICS.
|
|
|
TICS are similar to aggresomes. We next asked if TICS are specialized protein aggregates, such as aggresomes (for reviews, see references 8 and 19). A property of some aggresomes is enrichment in ubiquitin. To determine whether TICS are enriched in ubiquitin, cells were cotransfected with plasmids expressing TSG-3' and GFP-ubiquitin, which has been used as a live-cell marker for ubiquitin (24). GFP-ubiquitin was found exclusively inside the TICS with a nonregular or compact staining pattern towards the centers of the structures (Fig. 5P). The significance of this distribution is unknown. A different ubiquitin construct missing the terminal conjugating glycine residue (GFP-ubiquitin 75) was not as highly enriched in TICS, suggesting that the ubiquitin in the TICS exists largely in a form that is conjugated to other proteins (see Fig. S2 in the supplemental material). A GFP-tagged protein that forms aggresomes (GFP-250) (7) was also found to be highly enriched inside TICS (Fig. 5Q). These experiments suggest that cells may recognize some GFP-tagged proteins, such as RSV Gag-GFP, as misfolded proteins when they are coexpressed with TSG-3' and sequester them into aggresome-like compartments. If this is true, RSV Gag-GFP would likely also be recruited into classic aggresomes. To test this hypothesis, we cotransfected cells with GFP-250 along with DsRed-tagged RSV Gag (Fig. 5R). This Gag construct, which is efficiently recruited into TICS (data not shown), was fully excluded from GFP-250-induced aggresomes. These results imply, first, that although they share some properties, TICS are not identical to aggresomes and, second, that recruitment of Gag to TICS is probably not just a consequence of misfolding and/or aggregation.
TICS are amorphous structures when visualized by EM. To obtain thin-section TEM images of TICS, cells were transfected with a 1:1 ratio of YFP-TSG-3' to RSV Gag and sorted into fluorescent and nonfluorescent cells by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. Both populations of cells were then embedded and thin sectioned. Large amorphous aggregates were frequently observed in the fluorescent population (Fig. 6A) but not in the nonfluorescent population (data not shown). These structures were dense and round but showed no signs of either assembled virus particles or a limiting lipid bilayer. To obtain SEM images of the TICS, cells were again transfected with a 1:1 ratio of YFP-TSG-3' to RSV Gag on coverslips with grids. The membranes of the unfixed cells were stripped, and the actin cytoskeleton was disrupted prior to fixation as described in Materials and Methods. Individual cellular remnants were viewed first by confocal microscopy and then processed and viewed by SEM. The TICS were not affected by the treatment and were easily discernible by SEM (Fig. 6B to D).
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
TICS are similar but not identical to classic aggresomes. Whereas aggresomes are found near the microtubule-organizing center and there is typically only one aggresome per cell (8, 22), cells expressing TSG-3' commonly contain 10 or more TICS, which are distributed throughout the cell. Thin sections of classic aggresomes display dense but rather disperse aggregations of proteins in comparison to thin sections of TICS, which are solid round masses (Fig. 6A). Fluorescence images of cells transfected with YFP-TSG-3' (which induces and labels TICS) display a morphology distinct from that of GFP-250 (which induces and labels aggresomes). In general, the TICS are smaller and brighter and have a more regular spherical shape than aggresomes. Finally, TICS efficiently recruit RSV Gag-GFP and exclude antibodies, whereas aggresomes are routinely stained with antibodies and do not recruit RSV Gag-GFP.
Given the differences between aggresomes and TICS, it is curious that TSG-3' and GFP-250 strongly colocalize. Is TSG-3' recruited to aggresomes, or is GFP-250 recruited to TICS? Judging solely by fluorescence images, it appears that both events occur, as structures formed with GFP-250 and TSG-3' display both morphologies when they are observed by confocal microscopy (data not shown). Despite their differences, both TICS and aggresomes are composed of protein aggregates, which may amalgamate.
Another cellular entity composed of misfolded proteins is the dendritic cell aggresome-like induced structures (DALIS) (24, 25). DALIS form in dendritic cells following inflammatory stimulation or induced protein misfolding. Like TICS, DALIS do not necessarily form at the microtubule-organizing center, and the structures are highly enriched in ubiquitin. However, the DALIS are transient structures and are described as being unique to dendritic cells (24, 25).
What modulates recruitment to TICS? Why some retroviral Gag proteins are recruited to TICS and others are not largely remains a mystery. The observation that both RSV and HIV chimeric proteins with exchanged CA domains are recruited to TICS demonstrates that there is not one single domain of RSV Gag that causes recruitment or one single domain of HIV Gag that causes exclusion. However, it remains possible that there are redundant domains in RSV that trigger recruitment. It is tempting to hypothesize that recruitment is a consequence of protein tertiary structure. One could postulate that TSG-3' nucleates and maintains TICS but that they are filled with proteins that are unstable or are recognized by cellular proteins as being misfolded. This would explain why the artificial chimeric proteins, which might be less stable than their parent proteins, would be recruited to the TICS. Contrary to this hypothesis is the observation that the fast-budding RSV Gag(SM) (with only two point mutations in MA) is excluded from TICS. This exclusion suggests that recruitment to TICS can at least be circumvented. This circumvention may be a result of Gag reaching the plasma membrane before it can be sequestered or a result of Gag not trafficking by the pathway that leads to TICS.
Regardless of what mechanism triggers the recruitment of Gag to TICS, to some extent TICS prevent Gag from following its normal pathway, which is to exit the cell by budding. The observation that cells expressing RSV Gag(
L)-GFP plus TSG-3' have Gag(
L)-GFP both in virus particles at the plasma membrane and in TICS implies that there is a point of no return after which Gag in the process of assembly can no longer be sequestered into TICS. In fact, the observation that cells expressing RSV Gag(
L)-GFP appear to have less Gag in the TICS (Table 1) than wild-type Gag is probably just a consequence of there being a higher proportion of Gag on the plasma membrane. In cells expressing wild-type Gag plus TSG-3', the Gag-GFP that does not go to TICS probably buds away from the cell, effectively reducing the background and making the TICS appear brighter. But what is the point of no return at which Gag-GFP can no longer be sequestered into TICS? Is it the point when Gag begins assembling into a viral particle or the point at which Gag reaches the membrane? A possible unifying explanation of the results reported here would be that Gag assembly or Gag binding the plasma membrane circumvents recruitment to TICS. Perhaps RSV Gag-GFP(SM) is excluded from TICS because it rapidly binds the plasma membrane and all of the HIV Gag constructs are excluded from TICS (including the constructs which never go to a membrane) because they assemble faster than their RSV counterparts or the chimeric Gags.
Why does TSG-3' block retroviral budding? It is not surprising that expression of TSG-3' causes a decrease in MLV and RSV budding when there is a competition between budding and sequestration into TICS. However, TSG-3' also blocks the release of HIV Gag (11, 34) despite not sequestering HIV Gag into the TICS. The results reported here provide two possible explanations for why HIV budding is blocked. First, wild-type TSG101 is sequestered into TICS, and because depletion of this protein blocks HIV budding (9), overexpression of TSG-3' might have the same effect as depleting the cell of free TSG101. Second, ubiquitin is highly enriched in TICS. Since most retroviruses, including HIV and RSV, are blocked by depletion of free ubiquitin within cells by proteasome inhibitors (28, 33, 34), expression of TSG-3' may have similar effects on the levels of free ubiquitin in the cell and thereby inhibit budding indirectly. In support of the latter hypothesis, the retrovirus EIAV, which contains a YPDL late domain, is insensitive to proteasome inhibitors (26, 27) and also is not affected by TSG-3' expression (34).
In summary, we have shown that the expression of TSG-3' causes the formation of large unique cellular structures that selectively incorporate particular proteins, including VPS4, ubiquitin, and RSV Gag-GFP. TICS are similar in nature to aggresomes but differ in both action and appearance and represent unique cellular structures.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This work was supported by NIH grants CA20081 and CA47482.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://jvi.asm.org/. ![]()
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| J. Bacteriol. | Mol. Cell. Biol. | Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. |
|---|
| Clin. Vaccine Immunol. | ALL ASM JOURNALS |
|---|