Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, July 2008, p. 6130-6138, Vol. 82, No. 13
0022-538X/08/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JVI.02635-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Department of Microbiology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-174, Edobashi, Tsu, Mie 514-8507, Japan,1 Department of Microbiology and Molecular Medicine, University of Geneva School of Medicine, 11 Ave. De Champel, CH1211, Geneva, Switzerland2
Received 11 December 2007/ Accepted 6 April 2008
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
The hPIV2 V protein appears to be multifunctional. As summarized in Table 1 and Fig. 6A, the V protein has two NP-binding sites: the N-terminal 47 aa on the P/V common region (42, 61) and the C-terminal 50 aa on the V-specific region (35). It also has a V-oligomerization domain on the C-terminal 28 aa of the V-specific region (35) and shows a diffuse nuclear and cytoplasmic distribution in infected cells. In contrast, the P protein has two independent NP-binding sites, aa 1 to 47 and aa 357 to 395, and a P-multimerization domain, aa 211 to 248. P protein is organized in numerous granules with the NP protein in the cytoplasm of infected cells. P protein granule formation is due to the binding between residues 357 to 395 on the C-terminal domain of P protein and residues 295 to 400 of the NP, presumably of assembled nucleocapsids (40, 41, 42). It is presumed that the P protein forms a complex with both unassembled NP (soluble NP, NP0) and assembled NP (NP in helical nucleocapsids, NPNC), but that the V protein forms a complex only with NP0, similar to SeV and PIV5 V proteins (21, 48).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Summary of the various properties of the hPIV2 V protein mutants
|
![]() View larger version (37K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. Analysis of interactions between NP and V proteins by immunoprecipitation. (A) Schematic diagram of P/V regions required for binding to NP and L proteins previously identified. The numbers show amino acid residues on the NP protein. The arrow marks the editing site. (B) BSR T7/5 cells were transfected with plasmids expressing hPIV2 NP and mutant hPIV2 V proteins. At 48 hpt, the cell extracts were either analyzed directly by Western blot analysis (anti-NP; upper panel, anti-V; middle panel) or immunoprecipitated with anti-NP before Western blot analysis (anti-V; lower panel). The asterisk on the right indicates the immunoglobulin light chain. (C) BSR T7/5 cells were transfected with plasmids expressing hPIV2 (left panel) or PIV5 (right panel) NP and rubulavirus V proteins. At 48 hpt, the cell extracts were either analyzed directly by Western blot analysis (anti-NP, upper panel; anti-V and PIV5-V, middle panel) or immunoprecipitated with anti-V or PIV5-V before Western blot analysis (anti-NP, lower panel). (D) Mammalian two-hybrid analysis for NP and various V proteins. COS cells were cotransfected with pBIND and pACT plamids together with luciferase reporter plasmid. After 48 h, the cells were harvested and assayed by dual-luciferase reporter assay system. The pACT-V wt and mutant constructs refer to the hPIV2 V proteins; those of the other virus V proteins are specified.
|
Recombinant morbilliviruses (51), respiroviruses (9, 23), and an avulavirus (22, 46) that cannot express their V and W proteins have been recovered, and all of these viruses grow similarly to their respective parent viruses, at least in some cell lines such as Vero cells. In the case of the rubulaviruses, PIV5 that lacked the V protein C-terminal specific domain (rPIV5V
C) was recovered. rPIV5V
C induces apoptosis in many cells types but grows similarly to rPIV5 in Vero cells (18). V and W-minus hPIV2, in contrast, is highly debilitated, and its growth is very limited even in Vero cells. Moreover, the virus yields of rPIV2V
C and rPIV2s carrying mutations in the C-terminal V protein-specific domain are 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than that of wild-type (wt) hPIV2, even in Vero cells (25, 38). The hPIV2 V protein is thus clearly important for promoting virus growth, independent of the anti-IFN activity.
In the cases of SeV and hPIV3, viral RNA synthesis is downregulated by the C proteins, which bind to the L polymerase subunit (5, 8, 17, 20, 52). In studies using recombinant Rinderpest virus (RPV), a member of genus Morbillivirus, the absence of the V protein has little effect on the replication rate but does lead to increased synthesis of genome and antigenome RNAs. RPV that does not express the C protein, on the other hand, is clearly impaired for growth in cell culture, and its mRNA transcription is reduced (3). The RPV V and C proteins were found to interact with the L protein (54). Recently, the negative modulatory activity of V proteins encoded by PIV5 and MeV has been reproduced in transient minireplicon expression systems (32, 62). However, the mechanisms of the V protein inhibition of these minigenome systems are not clear. Since the hPIV2 V protein shares the N-terminal 164 aa with the P protein, which is essential for viral RNA transcription and replication, it is thought that V may also play a role in viral RNA transcription and replication.
In the present study we investigated the role of the V protein in hPIV2 replication, using a minigenome system free of vaccinia virus. We show here that the hPIV2 V protein inhibits genome replication. Using mutant hPIV2 V proteins and other rubulavirus V proteins, we found that the C terminus of the V protein was essential for this inhibition and for interaction with the L protein but not for interaction with the NP protein. These data suggest that the inhibitory effect of the hPIV2 V protein is the result of L protein binding and not that of NP.
|
|
|---|
Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against hPIV2 P/V protein (315-1), hPIV2 P protein (335A), hPIV2 V protein (53V), hPIV2 NP protein (306-1), and hPIV2 L protein (L70-6) were as described previously (36, 40, 41). The MAb against hPIV2 P/V protein 315-1 has cross-reactivity with SV41 P/V protein, and MAbs against hPIV2 P protein 335A and NP protein 306-1 have cross-reactivities with PIV5 proteins (57). The MAb against hPIV2 L protein, 8-2-1, was obtained by immunizing mice with 1,004 to 1,285 aa of the L protein recombinantly expressed in Escherichia coli and is cross-reactive with PIV5 L protein (unpublished data). Anti-V5 antibody and antibody to green fluorescent protein (GFP; sc-8334) were purchased from Invitrogen or Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA).
Construction of expression plasmids. Various V genes, hPIV2 NP gene, P gene, and L gene cloned into pTM1, which contains a T7 promoter and an encephalomyocarditis virus internal ribosome entry site (B. Moss, National Institutes of Health), were as described previously (38). PIV5 P, NP, L, and V genes were amplified by PCR and subcloned into pTM1 vector. Plasmid pPIV2-GFP was constructed by using standard molecular biology techniques. Various V genes and NP or P gene of hPIV2 were amplified by PCR and subcloned into pBIND or pACT vector (Promega) for mammalian two-hybrid assay. All of these constructs were confirmed by DNA sequencing.
Transient-expression analysis. Analysis of transient minigenome-encoded gene expression was performed in BSR T7/5 cells cultured in six-well plates. Plasmids pPIV2-GFP, pTM1-P, NP, L, and/or V were transfected into the cells by using FuGENE 6 (Roche) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The amounts of plasmids per well were as follows: pPIV2-GFP, 1 µg; pTM1-NP (nucleoprotein), 0.75 µg; pTM1-P (phosphoprotein), 0.4 µg; and pTM1-L (RNA-dependent RNA polymerase), 0.75 µg with or without pTM1-V at various amounts. pTM1 vector was used to normalize the amount of DNA in each sample. After 2 days, the transfected cells were lysed in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl [pH 7.5], 150 mM NaCl, 0.6% NP-40, 4 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride). The cell extracts were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane, and analyzed by a Western blot technique with appropriate antibodies as described previously (34).
RT-PCR of viral genome. Three days after transfection, cells were lysed with radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer and immunoprecipitated with anti-NP antibody (306-1), followed by ISOGEN (Nippongene) to purify NP-binding viral RNA. Purified RNAs in different transfection combinations were dissolved in 30 µl of H2O. A total of 2 µl of each sample was used for one-step reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR; Qiagen) using the oligonucleotide pair hPIV2 trailer (5'-ACCAAGGGGAAAATCAATATG-3') and GFP (5'-GACAACCACTACCTGAGCACCCAGTCCGCC-3'), which anneal to antigenomic sense viral RNA and GFP gene, respectively. A total of 2 µl of each RNA sample was used for PCR for 30 cycles as controls for possible contamination of plasmid DNA.
Immunoprecipitation analysis. BSR T7/5 cells in six-well plates were transfected with 2 µg of pTM1-V or mutants, 2 µg of pTM1-NP or pTM1-L, and 7 µl of FuGENE 6 according to the manufacturer's instructions. At 42 h posttransfection (hpt), cells were lysed in lysis buffer. The supernatants obtained by centrifugation were incubated with MAbs and protein A-Sepharose for 6 h as described previously (42). Polypeptides were analyzed by a Western blotting technique. Cell lysates were also subjected directly to Western blotting with MAbs to confirm expression of the proteins.
Mammalian two-hybrid assay. A CheckMate mammalian two-hybrid system (Promega) was used for the mammalian two-hybrid assay, and experiments were performed according to the manufacturer's protocol. Plasmids for this assay were prepared as described above. COS cells were transfected with the indicated pBIND and pACT plasmids, together with the pG5luc reporter plasmid. At 48 hpt, the cells were harvested and assayed by the dual-luciferase reporter assay system (Promega).
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (40K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Establishment of a minigenome system free of vaccinia virus. (A) Schematic diagram of the minigenome system. Plasmid pPIV2-GFP contains an hPIV2 minigenome flanked at one end by a bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase (T7 RNAP) promoter (T7) and at the other end by a hepatitis delta virus ribozyme (Ribozyme) and T7 transcriptional terminator (T7-T ). T7 RNA transcripts can be synthesized under the control of the T7 promoter to generate viral negative-sense PIV2 RNA. pPIV2-GFP contains three extra G residues after the T7 RNAP promoter and prior to the PIV2 trailer sequence (Tr) in order to increase T7 RNAP transcription efficiency. The extra leader sequence (Le) is generated by cleavage with hepatitis delta virus ribozyme. The plasmids pTM1-NP, pTM1-P, and pTM1-L were used to express NP, P, and L proteins in BSR T7/5 cells, a cell line that constitutively expresses T7 RNAP. GFP gene expression can be generated from transcription of primary T7 transcript and vRNA sense genome through viral RNA replication. 5' NP, 5' sequence of NP gene; 3' L, 3' sequence of L gene. (B) GFP expression from the minigenome system. Plasmids encoding NP, P, L, and pPIV2-GFP at various combinations were transfected into BSR T7/5 cells. At 48 hpt, cells were assayed by Western blotting with anti-NP, P, L, and GFP antibodies.
|
![]() View larger version (47K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Repression of GFP expression from the minigenome system by V. All transfections include equal amounts of total DNA including plasmids pPIV2-GFP (1 µg), pTM1-NP (0.75 µg), pTM1-P (0.4 µg), and pTM1-L (0.75 µg). Lane 1 contained a negative control derived from cells transfected without pTM1-NP. Increasing amounts of V-expressing plasmid pTM1-V (0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1, and 2 µg) were used (lanes 2 to 7). The total mass of transfected DNA was held constant by including the appropriate amount of pTM1 vector lacking an insert. After 48 h, the cells were assayed by Western blotting with anti-P/V, NP, L, and GFP antibodies.
|
![]() View larger version (30K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Effect of V on hPIV2 RNA replication. At 72 hpt, BSR T7/5 cells were lysed and immunoprecipitated with anti-NP MAb. NP-encapsidated RNAs were purified, and RT-PCR was carried out as described in Materials and Methods. The expected size of the PCR product is about 200 bp. Ethidium bromide staining of products from the RT-PCRs is shown. In the left panel, purified RNAs were used directly for PCR without the RT reaction. In the right panel, products from staged RT-PCRs are shown. Lanes: C, control cells transfected with pTM1-P, pTM1-NP, and pTM1-L without pPIV2-GFP; –V, cells transfected with pTM1-P, pTM1-NP, pTM1-L, and pPIV2-GFP; +V, cells transfected with pTM1-P, pTM1-NP, pTM1-L, and pPIV2-GFP plus pTM1-V. The migration of 100-bp DNA size makers is indicated adjacent to the blot.
|
![]() View larger version (35K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Repression of GFP expression from the minigenome system by mutant hPIV2 V proteins. (A) Schematic diagram of the V proteins. The closed circle indicates the position of the mutation residue of Phe143. The asterisks indicate the positions of the mutation residues of Trp-motif. The closed squares indicate the positions of the mutation residues of the Cys motif. The arrow above marks the editing site. (B) Effects of mutant V proteins on the GFP expression in the minigenome system. BSR T7/5 cells were transfected with plasmids pPIV2-GFP (1 µg), pTM1-NP (0.75 µg), pTM1-P (0.4 µg), and pTM1-L (0.75 µg) plus various pTM1-V (1 µg). After 48 h, the cells were assayed by Western blotting with anti-NP, P/V, L, and GFP antibodies. The numbers on the bottom of the figure correspond to each V protein described in panel A.
|
![]() View larger version (57K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. GFP expression from the minigenome system by combinations of rubulavirus NP, P, L, and V proteins. (A) Effect of heterogeneous sets containing NP, P, and L plasmids derived from hPIV2 and PIV5. BSR T7/5 cells were transfected with pPIV2-GFP and all possible combinations of hPIV2 and PIV5 NP, P, and L expression plasmids. –, No plasmid was included as a negative control. Repression of GFP expression from minigenome system of homologous sets of hPIV2 (B) or PIV5 (C) by rubulavirus V proteins. After 48 h, the cells were assayed by Western blotting with anti-NP, P/V, PIV5-V, L, and GFP antibodies.
|
Interactions of various V and NP proteins. The SeV V protein interacts with its NP protein to regulate genome RNA replication (21). It was postulated that the formation of V-NP complex sequestered sufficient NP to limit SeV encapsidation and replication. The hPIV2 V protein interacts with NP via two binding sites: one located at the N-terminal part of the protein (aa 1 to 47) and the other located in the C-terminal 50 aa (Fig. 6A and Table 1) (35, 42, 61). To examine the interaction between the hPIV2 V and NP proteins, NP and various hPIV2 V proteins were coexpressed in BSR T7/5 cells, and the cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-NP (see Materials and Methods). As shown in Fig. 6B, the wt and all mutant V proteins were coprecipitated, indicating that the N-terminal binding site of V was sufficient for this interaction. The interactions between hPIV2, SV41, or PIV5 V and the hPIV2 or PIV5 NP proteins were also examined by coimmunoprecipitation (Fig. 6C). Both NP proteins of hPIV2 and PIV5 bind to all of the V proteins. Thus, the repressive activity of the V protein does not correlate with its ability to form a complex with NP.
We further tested the V-NP interactions by mammalian two-hybrid analysis (Fig. 6D). COS cells were cotransfected with GAL4-fused NP (pBIND), a series of VP16-fused V protein mutants (pACT) and a firefly luciferase reporter plasmid. At 48 hpt, luciferase activities of cell lysates were measured. The bar graph of luciferase activity of Fig. 6D shows that the NP protein interacted with all of the V proteins. The activities between NP and hPIV2-V/W178H/W182E or SV41-V protein were lower than those between NP and other V proteins, that is, ca. 50 or 60% reduced compared to that of hPIV2-V, respectively. However, these activities also did not correlate with the ability of repression by V proteins. Taken together, these data suggest that the V-NP complex formation and minigenome repression are unrelated.
We have previously shown that the V protein cannot directly bind to P by coimmunoprecipitation (35). As shown in Fig. 6D, this V-P interaction is also not detected by mammalian two-hybrid analysis.
Interactions of various V and L proteins. As indicated in Fig. 6A, hPIV2 P protein interacts with L protein on the P-specific region (aa 278 to 353) (36). Although the P/V common domain is not essential for this interaction with L protein, whether the V protein interacts with L protein is not known. To examine the interaction between the V and L proteins, hPIV2 L protein and various mutants of hPIV2 V protein were expressed in BSR T7/5 cells, and the cell lysates were immunoprecipitated by anti-V MAb. Since our previous study showed that V protein binds to viral RNA (37), we carried out immunoprecipitation after treating the cell extracts with 0.25 µg of RNase A (Roche)/µl. As shown in Fig. 7A, the wt and F143S V proteins were coprecipitated, but all of the other V proteins that have mutations on the V-specific region were not. We also examined the interactions between the hPIV2 L protein and the various rubulaviruses V proteins (Fig. 7B). We found that the SV41 V protein also binds to the hPIV2 L protein, whereas PIV5 V protein does not. In an analogous fashion, the PIV5 V protein binds to the PIV5 L protein, but hPIV2 and SV41 V proteins do not (Fig. 7C). There is thus a perfect correlation between the bindings of various V proteins to L proteins and their ability to inhibit minigenome GFP expression.
![]() View larger version (29K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 7. Analysis of interactions between L and V proteins by immunoprecipitation. (A) BSR T7/5 cells were transfected with plasmids expressing hPIV2 L and mutant hPIV2 V proteins. At 48 hpt, the cell extracts were either analyzed directly by Western blot analysis (anti-L, upper panel; anti-V, middle panel) or immunoprecipitated with anti-V before Western blot analysis (anti-L, lower panel). (B and C) BSR T7/5 cells were transfected with plasmids expressing hPIV2 (B) or PIV5 (C) L and rubulavirus V proteins. At 48 hpt, the cell extracts were either analyzed directly by Western blot analysis (anti-L, upper panel; anti-V and PIV5-V, middle panel) or immunoprecipitated with anti-V (B) or PIV5-V (C) before Western blot analysis (anti-L, lower panel).
|
|
|
|---|
Sun et al. (53) recently reported that PIV5 V protein interacts with Akt, a serine/threonine kinase, and Akt plays a critical role in PIV5 replication. We have examined the interaction of the hPIV2 V and Akt. Except for W178H/W182E, whose mutations are very close to the putative Akt target site at Ser179, all of the other mutant V proteins bind to Akt similar to the wt hPIV2 V protein (data not shown). These data suggest that hPIV2 V inhibits the expression of the reporter gene through its interaction with L protein rather than its inhibition of Akt.
The paramyxovirus C and V genes are found as overlapping open reading frames of the P gene when they are present. C and V are sometimes referred to as accessory genes, since some viruses do not express one or the other. Except for hPIV1, all paramyxoviruses express a V protein, whereas rubulaviruses do not express C proteins. Rubulaviruses are also unique within this subfamily since their V proteins are translated from the unedited P gene mRNA. Moreover, in contrast to respirovirus (SeV) and morbillivirus (MeV) V proteins, rubulavirus V proteins are not excluded from virus particles. Perhaps more importantly, whereas respiroviruses (SeV) and morbilliviruses (MeV) that cannot express V proteins grow well in cell culture (at least in Vero cells), PIV2 which cannot express V protein grows very poorly in cell culture, even in Vero cells. Moreover, PIV5 which cannot express V protein has not as yet been recovered despite several attempts (Bob Lamb, unpublished data). In this respect, V-minus rubulaviruses resemble C-minus SeV, which are also difficult to prepare and which grow very poorly even in Vero cells. Given all of these unique properties of rubulavirus V proteins, one might have expected that they would exert a positive effect on viral RNA synthesis, but this is clearly not the case.
Leaving aside for the moment the essential but poorly described property of these accessory proteins in promoting virus growth, the paramyxovirus C and V proteins appear to have two main properties: to counteract the host innate immune response and to inhibit virus replication. At first glance, these two properties appear to act in a contradictory fashion. On the one hand, these accessory proteins directly interact with key players of the innate immune response by which cells establish an antiviral state, thus suppressing this cellular response and promoting virus replication. On the other hand, they interact directly with the virus replication machinery (the NP and L proteins) to inhibit virus replication. Although these two effects appear to be work in opposite directions, we assume that both effects contribute to viral fitness since these proteins also promote virus growth. It is possible that these two apparently contradictory effects are both part of the balancing act that viruses use to delay triggering apoptosis and maintain cells in a state that supports virus replication. A virus that inhibits the innate immune response and does not limit virus replication will presumably trigger apoptosis prematurely and thus not produce much viable progeny. Similarly, a virus that directly inhibits it own replication but does not inhibit the innate immune response will simply not get very far in producing progeny. Only viruses that have learned to balance their inhibition of the host cell antiviral state versus their inhibition of their own replication will have survived in the presence of the innate immune response that ultimately leads to programmed cell death. Presumably, this balancing act can be best accomplished when the same protein carries out both functions. This may be one explanation for why the paramyxovirus accessory proteins that counteract the innate immune response also directly inhibit genome replication.
Published ahead of print on 16 April 2008. ![]()
|
|
|---|
is not necessary for its ubiquitination and degradation caused by mumps virus V protein. J. Virol. 76:12683-12690.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»