Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, November 2006, p. 10879-10883, Vol. 80, No. 21
0022-538X/06/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JVI.01501-06
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Susan F. Cotmore,1 and
Peter Tattersall1,2*
Departments of Laboratory Medicine,1 Genetics, Yale University Medical School, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, Connecticut 0675102
Received 13 July 2006/ Accepted 11 August 2006
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Most parvoviral telomeres are nicked and copied in a process called "hairpin transfer," which inverts the palindrome with each round of synthesis. However, the left end of MVM is resolved by an alternate mechanism, termed "junction resolution," that preserves it in a single-sequence orientation in progeny genomes. As shown in Fig. 1, the unique 121-nucleotide left-end sequence of MVM folds into a Y-shaped hairpin containing small internal palindromes, forming the "ears" of the Y, and a 43-bp duplex stem region that is interrupted by a mismatched "bubble" sequence, where the triplet 5'-GAA-3' on the inboard arm is opposed by the doublet 5'-GA-3' on the outboard strand. Viral DNA synthesis is initially primed from the 3' nucleotide of this hairpin, generating a duplex molecule in which the two strands are effectively cross-linked by the hairpin. However, potential origin sequences cannot be nicked by NS1 in this hairpin configuration. Instead, rolling-hairpin displacement synthesis must proceed, so that the hairpin is unfolded and copied to create the fully base-paired palindromic junction, spanning adjacent genomes in dimer RF, before the active origin is generated (Fig. 1). Within this duplex structure the sequence from the outboard arm, surrounding the GA bubble dinucleotide, creates the active origin, OriLTC, while the equivalent sequence from the inboard arm, OriLGAA, containing the bubble trinucleotide, is inactive. The minimum linear origin sequence is approximately 50 bp in length, extending from two 5'-ACGT-3' motifs spaced 5 nucleotides apart at one end to a position some 7 bp beyond the nick site (7). The two 5'-ACGT-3' sequences serve as half sites that cooperatively bind a heterodimeric cellular factor called PIF, for parvovirus initiation factor (4, 12), also known as glucocorticoid modulating element-binding protein, or GMEB (19), which is abundantly expressed in many cell types. The binding specificity of this complex is unusual in that while it requires both half sites, these sites can be flexibly spaced from 1 to 9 nucleotides apart, with an optimal spacing of 6 nucleotides (1). In OriLTC, PIF makes contact with NS1 across the bubble dinucleotide sequence, stabilizing its binding to its cognate DNA binding site, activating NS1 to melt and subsequently nick its duplex nick site (3, 5). The position of the proximal PIF half site relative to the NS1 binding site is absolutely critical for allowing PIF to activate NS1, since the single additional intervening bubble nucleotide of the inboard arm prevents PIF from stabilizing the binding of NS1, which is therefore unable to nick OriLGAA. We have previously shown that, while the actual sequence of the OriLTC doublet is relatively unimportant, insertion of any third nucleotide here inactivates the origin, thus indicating that the bubble is a critical spacer rather than a recognition element in its own right (7, 12). The bubble mismatch therefore restricts origin activity to duplex forms of the outboard arm of the hairpin and causes them to be resolved asymmetrically, as shown in Fig. 1.
![]() View larger version (14K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Asymmetric resolution is controlled by the bubble. Shown is a diagram of the left-end hairpin of MVM, showing sequences of the bubble nucleotides that direct the segregation of active and inactive origins on either side of left-end:left-end junctions. The lower panel depicts the major products resulting from the ensuing replication/resolution reaction.
|
![]() View larger version (19K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Reverse genetic analysis of the bubble. Panel A details the distribution of transcription and replication factor binding sites within the left-end hairpin of MVM. Below this are shown the three mutant bubble sequences introduced into the infectious clone by oligonucleotide ligation (2). Panel B shows results from multiple transfections of ligation products generated with wild-type (WT) and mutant oligonucleotides.
|
![]() View larger version (30K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Second-site revertants of the lethal phenotype. DNA sequences were determined for revertants recovered as individual plaques, as shown in Fig. 2B. For each revertant, only the strand containing nucleotide changes from the input is shown (boxed), with deleted nucleotides indicated by an empty box. Proximal PIF half sites are shaded dark gray. Those with mutations predicted to be debilitating are shaded light gray, whereas those predicted to be inactive are unshaded. wt, wild type.
|
Similarly, the six viruses isolated from genomes reconstituted with the GAA-GAA mutation each failed to conform to the input sequence. However, in this instance they all retained wild-type sequence in the inboard arm but contained a single base deletion in the outer arm between the NS1 and PIF binding sites that restored the correct spacing for an active origin (Fig. 3). Three of the six viruses sequenced (clones 13 to 15) had regenerated the wild-type sequence in the outer arm. The frequency of this particular solution might be expected because the input sequence contains three consecutive adenosine bases, and a deletion of any one of them would be indistinguishable. In clones 16 and 17, an alternate single base has been lost from this spacer element, while in clone 18 the final T from the proximal PIF half site has been lost, allowing its place to be taken by the supernumerary G residue from the bubble. This transversion would be predicted to create a suboptimal PIF binding site; however, the correct spacing of the NS1 and PIF sites is regenerated, suggesting that in an active origin, the need for correct spacing is of greater importance than perfect PIF affinity. However, it should be noted that a mutation in a similar position in clone 7, in this case a transition, is predicted to restore enough origin asymmetry to render the resulting virus viable. We are currently exploring these two mutant viruses in greater detail, assessing their ability to amplify against wild-type virus at low input multiplicities and exploring their life cycle in the hope that this will reveal the nature of the defect arising from having just one, rather inefficient, left-end origin in the outboard arm, as in clone 18, versus having an active outboard origin sequence and a less effective inboard sequence.
Unlike the inverted terminal repeats of many parvoviruses, the left-end hairpin of MVM is not simply dedicated to replication but also contains a series of important upstream control elements for the nearby P4 promoter, interspersed and overlapping with its replication motifs (13, 17). Thus, the asymmetric sequence conservation observed might reflect a need to segregate elements involved in these two processes, such as transcription factor binding sites, to different arms, or forms, of the hairpin. As indicated in Fig. 2, NF-Y would bind equally well to Y-boxes present in the inboard and outboard palindromic arms and in the hairpin, while USF would bind to an E-box created exclusively within the inboard arm. However, mutagenesis of these motifs in reporter constructs indicate that NF-Y binding influences P4 transcription while USF does not (15), suggesting that neither site is likely to be a physiologically significant asymmetric binding module. Indeed, although the nucleotide changes in variants 2 and 3 likely inactivate NF-Y binding, these mutations occur on the arm that is presumed to be transcriptionally active. On the other hand, as indicated in Fig. 2, the outboard palindromic arm contains a CCAT-core YY1 consensus binding sequence (18), while the inboard arm does not. Since YY1 can act as both a repressor and an activator of transcription, depending on the particular promoter (14), it will be important to determine whether or not the selected mutant sequences bind YY1 and whether a requirement for specific repression of transcription exercised through the TC bubble sequence might be responsible for the selected asymmetry.
An alternative explanation for the observed polarity would be that, while it is essential to have one active origin, an active inboard origin is lethal in some way. One consequence of such an arrangement might be that replication initiating on an inboard OriL would set up a fork that proceeded in the outboard direction. If this happened on the extended form of the left end, depicted in Fig. 1, it would lead to the continuous displacement of isolated hairpins, as DNA synthesis repeatedly copied just the terminal palindrome. Possibly, isolated 3' hairpins might interfere with the establishment of viral packaging complexes, or, alternatively, this nonproductive amplification might not be lethal per se but simply impede the amplification process. Significantly, each of the displaced hairpins would have an NS1 molecule covalently attached to its 5' end, so that active replication at an inboard left-end origin might create a "sink" for those NS1 molecules that are activated for nicking a species that may be limiting for infection (16). If this is the explanation, then an alternative mechanism must exist for suppression of the inboard origin at the right end of the genome, where NS1 nicking is activated by HMG1/2 rather than by PIF (10) and where both outboard and inboard origins are active in vitro (6).
Parvoviruses are unable to transcribe their genes until the cell enters S phase, at least in part because complementary strand synthesis is required to create a duplex transcription template. Thus, during the first hours of S phase, a balance must be achieved between the use of duplex strands as transcription versus replication substrates. During this critical time, it may prove equally or more efficient to restrict the number of replication forks that can be established in the vicinity of the P4 promoter. Thus, given the virus' precarious life style, mutations that suppress the efficiency of the inboard left-end origin might initially simply have provided kinetic advantages during the first hours of S phase, when the virus must usurp control to ensure the maximum virus burst from each infected cell. If such a strategy did emerge, it would provide an opportunity for the inboard sequences to evolve, allowing them to serve additional functions or to dispense with constraints required to limit repeated initiation at this site in extended-form RF, as discussed above. Thus, an early arbitrary or minimally advantageous selection could lead eventually to modifications that would render asymmetric resolution essential. This appears to have been an easily adopted and successful strategy, as it occurs in four of the nine currently recognized parvovirus genera. Presumably this has occurred as the result of convergent evolution, since some of these genera are phylogentically remote from one another.
This work was supported by U.S. Public Health Service grant number AI26109. E.B. was supported, in part, by T32 GM07499.
Published ahead of print on 23 August 2006. ![]()
Present address: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94551. ![]()
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»