Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, March 2006, p. 2924-2932, Vol. 80, No. 6
0022-538X/06/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JVI.80.6.2924-2932.2006
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,1 Department of Pediatrics, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California,2 Saban Research Institute of Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California3
Received 13 October 2005/ Accepted 15 December 2005
|
|
|---|
) motif in the cytoplasmic tail and an unmapped region in the ectodomain of the protein. We here report that the cellular partner of the GYxx
motif is the adaptor protein complex AP-2. The mutation of this motif or the depletion of AP-2 by RNA interference abrogated EVR activity and changed the cellular distribution of the Env from a predominantly punctate pattern to a more diffuse distribution. Since the L domain of equine infectious anemia virus (EIAV) contains a Yxx
motif that interacts with AP-2, we used both wild-type and L domain-defective particles of HIV-1 and EIAV to examine whether the HIV-2 Env EVR function was analogous to L domain activity. We observed that the production of all particles was stimulated by HIV-2 Env or Vpu, suggesting that the L domain and EVR activities play independent roles in the release of retroviruses. Interestingly, we found that the cytoplasmic tail of the murine leukemia virus (MLV) Env could functionally substitute for the HIV-2 Env tail, but it did so in a manner that did not require a Yxx
motif or AP-2. The cellular distribution of the chimeric HIV-2/MLV Env was significantly less punctate than the wild-type Env, although confocal analysis revealed an overlap in the steady-state locations of the two proteins. Taken together, these data suggest that the essential GYxx
motif in the HIV-2 Env tail recruits AP-2 in order to direct Env to a cellular pathway or location that is necessary for its ability to enhance virus release but that an alternate mechanism provided by the MLV Env tail can functionally substitute. |
|
|---|
Although the retroviral Env protein is not absolutely required for the assembly and release of viral particles, it is now increasingly appreciated that Env plays an active role in these events. For example, the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) Env is able to target virus assembly to the basolateral membrane of polarized epithelial cells (26, 37) and to sites of cell-cell contact in infected monocytes and lymphocytes (9, 15). In both cases, a conserved Y-x-x-hydrophobic (Yxx
) motif in the cytoplasmic tail of Env is necessary for this redirection (15, 27). The clustering of HIV-1 assembly at cell-cell junctions has previously been documented (18, 40), and recent evidence suggests that the interaction of cell-associated HIV-1 Env with its cellular receptor(s) on target cells leads to the formation of a synapse that recruits the host cell proteins that are necessary for HIV entry as well as the viral Gag and Env proteins (24).
In HIV-2, the Env protein has an even more dramatic effect on virus assembly and release through its ability to boost production from certain human cell types (6, 44). We refer to this activity as the enhancement of virus release (EVR). In HIV-1, the Env protein does not generally possess EVR activity and this function is provided, instead, by the accessory protein Vpu (52, 53). Like HIV-2, most simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) strains do not code for Vpu (notable exceptions being HIV-1-like monkey isolates, such as SIVcpz) and the Env proteins from SIVmac239 and SIVmnd have also been reported to have enhancing activity (7, 23). These observations lead us to suggest that Vpu evolved in HIV-1 to take over the EVR function from the Env protein.
In vitro, EVRs typically boost steady-state levels of virus production from cell lines by 4- to 10-fold and this activity has been observed in various different human cell types, including HeLa and HEp-2 cells, various T-cell lines, primary blood mononuclear cells, and macrophages (2, 8, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 39, 44, 45, 46, 54). EVRs are able to stimulate the budding of heterologous viral particles from human cells (1), and it has been suggested that they counteract a natural human restriction factor that acts to inhibit retrovirus budding (21, 47). In contrast, simian cells do not appear to restrict HIV budding and do not support EVR activity (19, 47). Analysis of the heterokaryons formed between human and simian cells suggests that human cells contain a dominant factor that restricts virus production and which the EVRs counteract (1, 54).
Our previous studies of the HIV-2 Env defined two functional domains in the protein that are required for EVR activity, a conserved GYxx
motif in the membrane-proximal part of the cytoplasmic tail (GYPRV) and an unidentified region in the ectodomain of the protein (1). Yxx
motifs are found in the cytosolic domains of a variety of transmembrane proteins, where they play central roles in protein sorting (for a review, see reference 5). In mammalian cells, they act predominately to signal rapid internalization from the cell surface through interactions with components of the cellular trafficking machinery, most notably the adaptor protein (AP) complexes. Although the Yxx
tetrapeptide is the minimal motif conferring sorting information, the presence of a conserved upstream glycine residue is characteristic of a lysosomal targeting motif.
The analogous membrane-proximal GYxx
motif in the HIV-1 Env cytoplasmic tail, which we have previously shown to be functionally equivalent to the HIV-2 sequence (1), promotes endocytosis of HIV-1 Env from the cell surface and interacts specifically with the AP-2 complex (4). We therefore hypothesized that such an interaction could function to target the HIV-2 Env to an intracellular location that was important for its EVR activity. In the present study, we determined that AP-2 is indeed necessary for the EVR activity of the HIV-2 Env. Furthermore, by analyzing the cellular distribution of both a nonfunctional mutant of Env and a non-AP-2-requiring chimeric protein containing the cytoplasmic domain of the murine leukemia virus (MLV) Env, we have begun to examine whether targeting to a distinct cellular location is necessary for EVR activity.
|
|
|---|
The HIV-1 Gag-Pol-Rev expression plasmid pHIV-1-pack, the vector genome plasmid pSMPU-MND-nlacZ, and the expression plasmids for the HIV-2ROD10 Env and HIV-1NL4-3 Vpu have been previously described (1). Chimeric proteins containing the ectodomain and membrane-spanning regions of the HIV-2 Env fused to the cytoplasmic domains of either CD8 or the MLV Env were generated by splice overlap PCR. The equine infectious anemia virus (EIAV) proviral clone, EIAVUK, and an L domain mutant containing the substitution YPDL
SRSA were kindly provided by Ron Montelaro (25). An L domain mutant of pHIV-1-pack (PTAP
LTAL) was generated by PCR mutagenesis and splice overlap PCR. This mutation was identical to a previously reported mutation that does not affect the function of the pol gene, which overlaps this region of gag in a different reading frame (13).
Generation of virus particles and Western blot analysis. HeLa cells grown to 80 to 90% confluence were transiently transfected with the appropriate plasmids using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.) as previously described (1). Cell lysates were harvested, and viral particles were collected from the supernatant by centrifugation through 2 ml of 20% (mass/vol) sucrose at 4°C for 2 h at 25,000 rpm using an SW40 rotor (Beckman Instruments, Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.). HIV-1 CA proteins were detected by using mouse anti-p24 monoclonal antibody 183-H12-5C (Bruce Chesebro and Kathy Wehrly, AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program) at a 1:3,000 dilution. EIAV CA was detected by using a monoclonal antibody against p26 at a 1:1,000 dilution (11). The secondary antibody was horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (1:10,000) (Pierce, Rockford, IL). Specific proteins were visualized using the enhanced chemiluminescence detection system (Amersham International, Arlington Heights, IL). Exposed and developed films were scanned with an HP Scanjet 4570c scanner, and bands were quantified by using the public domain NIH ImageJ software. Protein standards were run to ensure that the quantified gel bands remained within the linear range for analysis. The intensity of the CA-reacting bands on the Western blots was measured, and the ratio of the signal in virions to lysates was obtained. The enhancement of budding was calculated by normalizing all values to the Gag-Pol-only controls.
siRNA knockdowns. The 50-kDa µ2 subunit of the AP-2 complex was targeted by using an oligonucleotide with the sequence 5'-AAGUGGAUGCCUUUCGGGUCA-3' and a control nonfunctional oligonucleotide with the sequence 5'-AACACAGCAACCUCUACUUGG-3' (30). Both short interfering RNAs (siRNAs) were synthesized as option C by Dharmacon, Inc. (Lafayette, CO).
HeLa cells were seeded in 10-cm dishes at a density of 106 cells per dish 24 h before transfection. Forty microliters of Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) was added to 110 µl Opti-MEM I (Invitrogen) and incubated at room temperature for 10 min. This was added to a second solution of 800 µl Opti-MEM I plus 50 µl of a 20-µM solution of siRNA and incubated at room temperature for a further 20 min. Four milliliters of Opti-MEM I was added to the siRNA mixture for a final volume of 5 ml, and this was added to the cells, which were first rinsed with Opti-MEM I. The cells were incubated with the transfection mixture for 4 h, which was then replaced with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium plus 20% fetal bovine serum for overnight incubation. On the following day, the cells were trypsinized and reseeded into 10-cm dishes. Twenty-four hours later, a second transfection with siRNA was performed. Twenty-four hours after the second transfection, the cells were trypsinized and samples were taken from both the control and anti-AP-2 siRNA cells to assay the efficiency of AP-2 knockdown by using a mouse monoclonal antibody against the µ2 subunit of AP-2 (BD-Transduction Laboratories, San Jose, Calif.). The remaining cells were transfected 24 h later for a third time by using plasmids for virus release analysis as described above.
Immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy. HeLa cells were transfected with pHIV-1-pack, pSMPU-MND-nlacZ, and the appropriate HIV-2 Env expression plasmid in 10-cm dishes and then, 12 h later, were seeded on coverslips that were coated with poly-L-lysine (Sigma). The cells were incubated for an additional 48 h and then processed for antibody staining. Cells were washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde for 20 min at room temperature, washed three times in PBS, permeabilized for 10 min in 0.1% Triton X-100 at room temperature, washed three times in PBS, and then blocked for 1 hour in 1% bovine serum albumin. HIV-2 Env proteins were stained by using a rabbit polyclonal serum against the HIV-2ST SU protein (Raymond Sweet, AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program) at a 1:5,000 dilution. Various cellular organelles were costained as follows: Golgi, by using anti-human Golgin97 mouse monoclonal antibody (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) at 1:100 dilution; trans-Golgi network, by using sheep anti-TGN46 (Serotec, Oxford, United Kingdom) at 1:1,000 dilution; early endosomes, by using anti-EEA1 mouse monoclonal antibody (Abcam, Cambridge, MA) at 1:200 dilution; lysosomal associated protein-3/CD63, by using anti-LAMP-3 mouse monoclonal antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnologies, Santa Cruz, CA) at a 1:500 dilution; and lysosomal-associated membrane protein-2/CD107b, by using mouse monoclonal antibody (BD Pharmingen, San Diego, CA) at 1:100 dilution. The secondary antibodies used were either donkey anti-rabbit AlexaFluor 488-conjugated, donkey anti-mouse AlexaFluor 594-conjugated, or donkey anti-sheep AlexaFluor 594-conjugated secondary antibodies (Molecular Probes). Nuclei were stained with DAPI (4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole) and To-Pro-3 (Molecular Probes). Images were acquired with a Leica TCS-SP1 spectral confocal microscope (Leica Microsystems, Bannockburn, IL) and processed with LCS Lite software.
|
|
|---|
motif, centered at tyrosine-707 in the HIV-2 Env cytoplasmic tail, that was absolutely essential for the protein's EVR activity (1). The analogous motif in the HIV-1 Env has been shown to promote the internalization of Env through an interaction with AP-2 (4). We therefore examined whether the recruitment of AP-2 was necessary for the HIV-2 Env EVR activity by using RNA interference targeting the µ2 subunit of the AP-2 complex as described previously (30). Two hundred nanomolar siRNA was transfected into HeLa cells on days 1 and 3, and the cells were transfected a third time on day 5 with an HIV-1-based vector system comprising a plasmid expressing the HIV-1 Gag-Pol and Rev proteins and a plasmid transcribing a packageable vector genome. In addition, we cotransfected expression vectors for either the HIV-2ROD10 Env or the HIV-1NL4-3 Vpu protein (Fig. 1A). An inactive siRNA was included as a control, and AP-2 depletion was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 1B).
![]() View larger version (32K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Effect of RNA interference against AP-2 on EVR activity. (A) HeLa cells were transfected with an siRNA directed against the 50-kDa µ2 subunit of AP-2 ( -AP-2) or a nonfunctional control siRNA. The cells were then transfected with plasmids expressing HIV-1 Gag-Pol-Rev alone () or together with plasmids expressing either HIV-2 Env or Vpu (+). Cell lysates and pelleted virions were analyzed by Western blotting by using anti-CA and anti-Env antibodies. (B) Western blot showing knockdown of the 50-kDa µ2 subunit of AP-2 ( -AP-2) in cell lysates following transfection with an anti-AP-2 siRNA. (C) The p24 (CA)-reacting bands in the Western blots were quantitated, and the ratio of the signal in virions to lysates was obtained. The enhancement of budding was calculated by normalizing all ratios to the Gag-Pol-Rev-only sample in the presence of the control siRNA. The results show that AP-2 depletion increases the baseline level of virus release in the absence of EVRs and prevents HIV-2 Env EVR activity, but it has no effect on the activity of Vpu. The data show the average of three independent experiments. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
|
Position dependence of the GYRPV motif in the HIV-2 Env tail.
We next asked whether the GYxx
motif was the only contribution of the HIV-2 Env tail to EVR activity and, therefore, whether the motif could function in the context of a heterologous cytoplasmic domain. We have previously described a nonfunctional chimeric protein comprising the ectodomain and a membrane-spanning domain of the HIV-2 Env fused to the cytoplasmic domain of CD8 (protein E2M2T8) (1). The insertion of the HIV-2 GYRPV motif into this protein at the same location as that in the native Env protein (5 to 9 amino acids from the membrane-spanning domain) resulted in a fully functional protein (Fig. 2).
![]() View larger version (39K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Position and sequence dependence of the membrane-proximal GYRPV motif. (A) Sequences of the cytoplasmic domains of the test proteins are shown. (B) Representative Western blot showing the intensity of the p24-containing bands in lysates and virions pelleted from supernatants. (C) Quantitation of EVR activity. The enhancement of budding for each sample was calculated as described in the legend for Fig. 1 and normalized to the wild-type HIV-2 Env value (lane 1). The results show that the GYPRV motif is highly position dependent and requires both the glycine and tyrosine residues for activity. Both of these features are hallmarks of lysosome-targeting signals.
|
motif from the membrane can influence both the cellular partner and function of the motif. For example, purely endocytic signals are typically situated 10 to 40 residues from the membrane, while lysosomal targeting motifs are present 6 to 9 residues from the membrane (5). We therefore examined whether the HIV-2 Env motif was position dependent by inserting the GYRPV motif at various sites within the CD8 tail and assessing the ability of the chimeric proteins to enhance virus release (Fig. 2). Interestingly, we obtained only a fully functional protein when the motif was placed in the analogous position to its native location in the HIV-2 Env, i.e., at 5 to 9 amino acids downstream from the membrane-spanning region. The insertion of the motif at more distal sites did not result in any EVR activity. These data are in agreement with a model whereby the GYRPV motif acts to recruit AP-2 and is a sorting signal for both endocytosis and subsequent trafficking towards lysosomes. Furthermore, they indicate that that the only contribution of the HIV-2 Env cytoplasmic tail to EVR activity is to provide a correctly positioned GYRPV sequence.
HIV-2 Env and Vpu EVR activities are independent from L domain activity.
It is increasingly clear that retrovirus assembly and budding use the cell's protein trafficking and sorting machinery. L domains interact with various members of the class E Vps pathway, and both AP-3 and AP-2 have been implicated in HIV-1 Gag trafficking and release (3, 16). Several different classes of L domains have been identified, including Yxx
motifs in EIAV and influenza virus. Interestingly, the EIAV L domain has been reported to interact with both AP-2 (41) and AIP1/ALIX (28, 51) and EIAV is unusual among the lentiviruses in that its cytoplasmic tail does not contain a membrane-proximal Yxx
motif. We therefore considered the possibility that the membrane-proximal GYxx
motif of the HIV-2 Env and the Yxx
motif in the EIAV L domain could both be functioning to enhance virus release through similar mechanisms involving the recruitment of AP-2 and that the HIV-2 Env EVR activity was therefore analogous to L domain activity.
To test this hypothesis, we examined whether the HIV-2 Env or Vpu could compensate for the loss of L domain activity in either HIV-1 or EIAV particles and, conversely, whether L domain mutants of these two viruses were still responsive to HIV-2 Env or Vpu. HeLa cells were transfected with either wild-type or L domain mutants of HIV-1 and EIAV and cotransfected with expression plasmids for either Vpu or HIV-2 Env. For the HIV-1 particles, we used a previously reported specific mutation of the PTAP L domain sequence (13), while for EIAV, we used proviral clones of either the wild-type virus or a YPDL
SRSA L domain mutant (25). For both HIV-1 and EIAV, as was expected, the loss of the L domain significantly reduced overall virus production, giving only 14 and 12%, respectively, of the amount of particles released when the L domain sequences were present. Despite the lower levels of release, both mutant viruses remained fully responsive to the enhancing effects of Vpu and HIV-2 Env (Fig. 3). However, even when stimulated by the presence of the EVRs, the level of release of the mutant constructs was increased to only 37 to 49% of the level produced by the wild-type constructs in the absence of EVRs, indicating that the loss of an L domain cannot be fully compensated for by EVR activity. In addition, the characteristic processing defect in the HIV-1 L domain mutant that leads to an increase in the level of p25 was not corrected by coexpression of an EVR (Fig. 3A). Taken together, these data suggest that L domain and EVR activities are independent.
![]() View larger version (34K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. EVR and L domain activities are independent processes. (A) Virion production from both the wild type (WT) and an L domain mutant (LTAL) of HIV-1 responded equally to stimulation by the HIV-2 Env or Vpu (+). The characteristic appearance of the p25 processing intermediate is seen for the L domain mutant, and this defect is not rescued by EVR expression. The enhancement of budding was calculated as described in the legend for Fig. 1, with the Gag-Pol-Rev-only control () in each case being normalized to 1 (n = 3). (B) Similar analysis for wild type and L domain mutant (SRSA) of EIAV using anti-p26 (CA) antibody. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
|
As a first analysis, we examined the overall pattern of Env distribution in HeLa cells and compared the wild-type protein to a defective tyrosine mutant, HIV-2Y707A (1). For each Env protein, we saw both cells showing a predominantly punctate pattern of Env distribution throughout the cell and others with a mostly diffuse distribution. However, the relative amounts of each pattern differed considerably; the wild-type Env was observed in a punctate distribution in 87% of the cells examined, while only 41% of the cells expressing the Y707A mutant showed this pattern (Fig. 4A). In addition, we noted that the punctate spots for the Y707A mutant were considerably larger than those observed for the wild-type Env (Fig. 4C).
![]() ![]() ![]() View larger version (88K): [in a new window] |
FIG.4. The Yxx motif and AP-2 are important for the cellular distribution of the HIV-2 Env. (A) Relative amounts of two patterns of HIV-2 Env distribution, punctate and diffuse, that were observed in HeLa cells 48 h after transfection of expression plasmids for wild-type HIV-2 Env or the Y707A mutant. Sixty-five cells were scored blind in each arm of the experiment. (B) Western blot analysis demonstrates equivalent levels of expression of the wild type and Y707A mutant of HIV-2 Env in HeLa cell lysates. (C) Representative fields of cells expressing either wild-type Env or the Y707A mutant, showing punctate and diffuse staining patterns. The spots for the Y707A mutant were noticeably larger than those observed with the wild-type Env. Nuclei were stained with DAPI. D, diffuse; P, punctate; U, cells not expressing Env. (D) Effect of knockdown of AP-2 by RNA interference on staining pattern of HIV-2 Env. (E) Representative cells transfected with HIV-2 Env and control and anti-AP-2 siRNAs and stained with anti-Env antibody.
|
The MLV Env tail can substitute for the HIV-2 tail, despite not using its Yxx
motif or requiring AP-2.
We next asked whether the presumed trafficking function of the HIV-2 Env cytoplasmic tail could be substituted by the cytoplasmic domains of another retroviral Env protein. Accordingly, we constructed a chimeric protein containing the MLV Env tail [protein E2M2T(MLV)] and observed that this protein also supported wild-type levels of EVR activity (Fig. 5).
![]() View larger version (27K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. (A) Amino acid sequence of the Moloney MLV Env cytoplasmic tail, showing the extent of the R peptide and the location of a Yxx motif centered around tyrosine-622, which was mutated to alanine in the E2M2T(MLV*) chimera. (B) Lysates and virus supernatants probed with anti-CA antibody revealed enhancement of HIV-1 budding induced by the HIV-2 Env, the chimera E2M2T(MLV) containing the MLV tail, and chimera E2M2T(MLV*), which contains a Y622A substitution in the cytoplasmic tail. One representative Western blot is shown, together with a graph showing the average of two independent experiments. The anti-p24 (CA) antibody used also reacts with unprocessed p55Gag and processing intermediates such as p41 (MA-CA). Error bars indicate standard error of the mean. (C) Western blot analysis of cell lysates and virus released from HeLa cells that were transfected with control or anti-AP-2 siRNAs. For the graphical representation, enhancement was calculated as described in the legend for Fig. 1, with all values normalized to the Gag-Pol-Rev-only () sample receiving the control siRNA.
|
motif, located in the C-terminal half of the tail, which is referred to as the R peptide. This peptide is proteolytically cleaved from the Env protein during virion maturation, an event that increases the fusogenic potential of the Env protein (42, 43). Although the MLV motif is positioned 22 to 25 residues from the membrane and therefore does not fit the criteria for functionality that we had established with the HIV-2 Env/CD8 chimeras, we examined whether it played a role in the EVR activity of the chimeric protein. However, the mutation of the tyrosine had no effect on EVR activity (Fig. 5). This finding suggested that the MLV tail may not have an AP-2 interacting motif and therefore that AP-2 might not be required for the activity of the chimeric protein. In order to address this possibility, we examined whether the E2M2T(MLV) Env was affected by the loss of AP-2 by RNA interference and found that the chimeric Env was insensitive to the loss of AP-2 (Fig. 5). Finally, we examined the overall pattern of cellular distribution of E2M2T(MLV) Env and found that it differed from the wild-type Env, as only 33% of the cells exhibited a punctate staining pattern, with spots that were often smaller and less distinct than those we observed with the wild-type Env (see the supplemental material). Together, these results indicate that, while the HIV-2 Env tail provides an essential function that utilizes AP-2, the same activity can be provided by the MLV Env tail through a different mechanism that results in a different gross cellular distribution.
Do EVR-active proteins [HIV-2 Env and E2M2T(MLV)] share common cellular locations? Despite the fact that the wild-type Env and the functional E2M2T(MLV) chimera gave distinct staining patterns when expressed in HeLa cells, it remained possible that they were present in similar subcellular locations that are important for EVR activity. To address this question, we examined the extent of colocalization of each of the Env proteins used in this study with subcellular markers. Cells exhibiting both punctate and diffuse staining patterns were examined separately (Table 1; see the supplemental material). This analysis revealed that a significant portion of the wild-type HIV-2 Env was found to colocalize with markers for the Golgi apparatus and the trans-Golgi network (TGN), especially in the punctate-staining cells. We also saw some costaining with the early endosome marker, EEA1, and with LAMP-2 (found in early endosomes, the plasma membrane, late endosomes/MVBs, and lysosomes). HIV-1 budding has been reported to occur at late endosomes/MVBs and tetraspanin-enriched microdomains at the cell surface (34), both of which contain CD63, and the HIV-1 Env has been shown to colocalize with surface CD63 (34). However, we observed no significant overlap with CD63, although it is possible that the sensitivity of our assay is not sufficient to detect such an interaction.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Colocalization of HIV-2 Env proteins with subcellular compartments
|
motif of the HIV-2 Env functioning as an endocytosis signal. It also suggests that endocytosis from the cell surface is a prerequisite for entry of the HIV-2 Env into internal compartments containing EEA1, CD63, or LAMP-2. As noted above, although the substitution of the MLV tail in chimera E2M2T(MLV) resulted in a fully functional protein, this chimera did not exhibit the same overall staining pattern as the wild-type Env. Only 33% of cells expressing the chimera displayed a punctate distribution, and the spots we observed were often smaller and less distinct than those observed for the wild-type Env. However, despite these gross differences in distribution, the costaining studies with subcellular markers revealed a distribution that resembled that of wild-type Env, with colocalization with markers for the Golgi apparatus, TGN, early endosomes, and LAMP-2 but not with CD63. It is therefore possible that both the HIV-2 and MLV Env cytoplasmic tails contain signals that direct the HIV-2 Env to a common compartment that is necessary for its EVR activity but that, while the HIV-2 tail uses AP-2-mediated endocytosis, the MLV tail uses a different route. Our ongoing studies are aimed at elucidating the pathway used by the MLV cytoplasmic domain.
|
|
|---|
A current model of EVR activity is that human cells contain a restriction factor that suppresses retroviral budding and whose activity is counteracted by the EVRs. This is supported by analyses of the heterokaryons formed between restrictive (human) and nonrestrictive (simian) cell types, where the human cell phenotype of restricted budding/EVR responsiveness is dominant (1, 54). It is something of a philosophical question as to whether EVR activity is viewed as counteracting a host defense mechanism that has evolved to restrict retrovirus budding or as simply reflecting a viral mechanism to override normal cellular checkpoints. Either way, the cellular proteins or pathways that the EVRs target are presently unknown. As part of our investigations into these activities, we are mapping functional domains within the EVR proteins and elucidating their contribution to the activity. In the present study, we show that the cytoplasmic tail of the HIV-2 Env contributes a membrane-proximal GYRPV motif that interacts with AP-2 and which, by its sequence and position dependence characteristics, shares properties with lysosomal targeting motifs.
We speculated that two possible mechanisms could account for the requirement for the GYRPV motif and AP-2 in the HIV-2 Env EVR activity. First, this sequence could be recruiting AP-2 as part of an activity that is similar to L domain function. This hypothesis was based on the fact that the L domain in the EIAV p9 protein contains a Yxx
sequence that is capable of interacting with both AIPI/ALIX and AP-2 (41, 51), with both interactions being critical for L domain activity (32). Intriguingly, the EIAV L domain has characteristics that are distinct from other L domains (36, 38, 48) and the cytoplasmic tail of the EIAV Env is unusual among the lentiviruses in having no membrane-proximal Yxx
motif. However, our analysis of the response of both wild-type and L domain mutants of EIAV and HIV-1 revealed that all virions were stimulated by both HIV-2 Env and Vpu. Furthermore, although virus production was significantly decreased for both viruses when the L domains were mutated, this could not be fully restored by the addition of an EVR. Taken together, these findings indicate that L domain activity is a distinct process from that of the EVR activity of either HIV-2 Env or Vpu.
The second hypothesis that we explored was that the GYRPV/AP-2 interaction was critical for HIV-2 Env EVR activity by virtue of targeting the protein to a specific cellular location or pathway that was necessary for its activity. In particular, the lysosome-targeting characteristics of the GYPRV sequence are consistent with a model whereby Env is directed to an endosomal/lysosomal compartment, where it may interact with other components involved in virus assembly that are also targeted towards the late endosome/MVB that is proposed to be a site of virus assembly (31, 33, 35, 49). We explored the possibility that a distinct subcellular location is correlated with HIV-2 Env EVR activity by comparing the distributions of both EVR-active proteins [wild-type HIV-2 Env and the E2M2T(MLV) chimera] and the nonfunctional HIV-2Y707A mutant. We observed that the mutation Y707A in the HIV-2 tail as well the loss of AP-2 by RNA interference altered the distribution of Env from a predominantly punctate to a more diffuse staining pattern. Furthermore, the Y707A mutant had significantly less colocalization with markers of the endocytic pathway such as EEA1, which is in keeping with a role for the GYPRV sequence in promoting endocytosis through an AP-2 interaction. However, the finding that the MLV tail could substitute for this activity in a manner that did not use AP-2, that did not depend on a Yxx
motif, and that resulted in a cellular distribution that was more diffuse than punctate, suggests that AP-2-mediated endocytosis is not the only route whereby the HIV-2 Env can be directed to such an active cellular compartment. Identification of the cellular partner(s) used by the MLV tail may shed light on the mechanism involved. Finally, it remains a possibility that only a fraction of the Env needs to be localized to a specific site for activity and sufficient protein is correctly targeted by either Env tail. Such an active cellular location may be obscured by the background distribution that we observe for different constructs, especially when we consider that the EVR proteins have other functions in the HIV life cycle. Our ongoing analyses are aimed at elucidating both the functional subcellular compartment for EVR activities and the cellular partners that are involved.
This work was supported by Public Health Service grant CA-59318 and the Universitywide AIDS Research Program, ID03-CHLA-036.
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://jvi.asm.org/. ![]()
|
|
|---|
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»