Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Minireviews
    • JVI Classic Spotlights
    • Archive
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JVI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Virology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Minireviews
    • JVI Classic Spotlights
    • Archive
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JVI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Virus-Cell Interactions

Two Gamma Interferon-Activated Site-Like Elements in the Human Cytomegalovirus Major Immediate-Early Promoter/Enhancer Are Important for Viral Replication

James Netterwald, Shaojun Yang, Weijia Wang, Salena Ghanny, Michael Cody, Patricia Soteropoulos, Bin Tian, Walter Dunn, Fenyong Liu, Hua Zhu
James Netterwald
1Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shaojun Yang
1Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Weijia Wang
1Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Salena Ghanny
2Center for Applied Genomics, Public Health Research Institute, International Center for Public Health, Newark, New Jersey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Cody
2Center for Applied Genomics, Public Health Research Institute, International Center for Public Health, Newark, New Jersey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patricia Soteropoulos
1Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
2Center for Applied Genomics, Public Health Research Institute, International Center for Public Health, Newark, New Jersey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bin Tian
3Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Walter Dunn
4Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fenyong Liu
4Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hua Zhu
1Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: zhuhu@umdnj.edu
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.79.8.5035-5046.2005
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Additional Files
  • FIG. 1.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 1.

    The expression of ISGs and HCMV IE1 may require similar signal transduction pathways. HFF cells were mock infected or infected with HCMV in the absence of a kinase inhibitor (DMSO) or in the presence of kinase inhibitors, as indicated above the lanes. These inhibitors included the tyrosine kinase (TyrK) inhibitor genistein (Gen), the PKA inhibitor HA1004 (HA), the PKC inhibitor H7, the PKR inhibitor 2-AP, and the cPLA2 inhibitor quinacrine (Qui). The expression levels of isg54K, isg15K, cig49, cig6, and IE1 were measured by Northern blotting. cPLA2 was used as an internal control. Inhibitors that blocked isg expression also blocked HCMV IE1 expression.

  • FIG. 2.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 2.

    IFNs stimulate HCMV major IE expression. HFF cells were either mock infected (M) or infected with HCMV (C) for different times as indicated above the lanes (hpi). The cells were treated with IFN-α or IFN-γ for 2 h before infection (α+C), 4 h after infection (C+α or C+γ), or left untreated (C). Northern blot assays were performed to measure HCMV IE1 expression. Fold activation of IE1 is indicated at the bottom of the upper panel. The cellular 7SK gene was used as an internal control (lower panel).

  • FIG. 3.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 3.

    Deletion analysis of two VRS1 elements in the HCMV major IE promoter. (A) The two VRS1 elements within a 131-bp fragment of wild-type AD169BAC (W) were replaced by a kan/lacZ cassette to generate a VRS1 deletion mutant, AD169VRS-Δ (Δ). The names, locations, and orientations of PCR primers for verifying the correct clones are indicated by arrows. (B) Using PCR, the deletion clone (Δ) was compared with the wild-type clone (W). The results showed that the VRS fragment was not present in the mutant clone (lane 2) but was present in the wild type (lane 1). The kan/lacZ cassette was inserted in the correct genomic position, as evidenced by the presence of the right (lane 8) and left (lane 6) junctions in the deletion clone but not in the wild-type clone (lanes 7 and 5). UL4 was used as a control (lanes 3 and 4). (C) The wild-type (W) and deletion (Δ) BAC DNAs were digested by EcoRI and SalI, and the deletion of VRS elements was confirmed further by Southern blotting using the VRS fragment as a probe. The VRS fragment is only present in the wild type (W) and not in the deletion (Δ) clones. (D) A multistep growth curve analysis was performed to compare the wild type (W; black circle) and VRS deletion mutant (Δ; black triangle) at an MOI of 0.1. The peak titer of mutant virus was 100- to 1,000-fold lower than that of the wild-type virus.

  • FIG. 4.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 4.

    Analyses of point mutations in the VRS elements. (A) The VRS1 wild-type and point mutation reporter plasmids, pElu-VRS-W and pElu-VRS-P, were constructed. A 131-bp MIEP/E fragment containing either wild-type or mutated VRS1 (as shown in boxes) was inserted into the isg54K promoter (Pisg54K) in pElu-NRS (47). In pElu-VRS-P, one VRS1 was converted into an XhoI site and the other was converted into an XbaI site as indicated, resulting in three point mutations in the GAS consensus sequences, as indicated by underlines. The GAS consensus sequence is also indicated. Two previously constructed VRS wild-type and mutant clones, pElu-GAS and pElu-GASm, also are illustrated. The intervening sequence between the two VRS1 elements in MIEP/E was removed in these two plasmids. (B) pElu-GAS and pElu-GASm were transfected into HFF cells. Ten days posttransfection, the cells were either mock infected (mock) or infected with UV-inactivated HCMV (UV-HCMV) at an MOI of 1 for 8 h, and luciferase assays were performed. The relative luciferase activities from the average of triplicate points are shown. (C) The DNA-binding activities of the wild-type and mutated VRS1-containing fragments were analyzed using EMSA. The 131-bp wild-type (W) and point mutation (P) fragments were amplified from pElu-VRS-W and pElu-VRS-P by PCR. These fragments were labeled as probes (PB) and incubated with or without HCMV-infected cell nuclear extracts (NE). A specific interaction was observed when the wild-type (lane 2), but not the mutant (lane 4), probe was used in the reaction.

  • FIG. 5.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 5.

    Generation of the VRS1 point mutation and rescue viruses. (A, diagram 1) pGEM-lox-zeo was constructed by inserting a loxP/zeor cassette into pGEM-T. The 131-bp MIEP/E fragment containing the VRS1 mutations then was cloned between the SphI and BamHI sites of pGEM-lox-zeo to create pGEM-lox-zeo-VRS-P. The two VRS1 sites were converted into XhoI and XbaI, as shown in Fig. 4A. (Diagram 2) The VRS-P/zeo fragment was amplified by PCR. (Diagram 3) This PCR fragment was electroporated into DY380 carrying the AD169VRS-Δ BAC clone (VRS-Δ). (Diagram 4) The kan/lacZ fragment was replaced by the VRS-P/zeo to produce an HCMV clone containing mutated VRS1 elements with zeor (VRS-P-zeo). (Diagram 5) The VRS-P-zeo DNA was cotransfected with a CRE-expressing plasmid into HFF cells to generate the VRS1 point mutant (VRS-P), in which zeor was removed from the genome and one loxP site was left in the recombinant virus genome. (Diagram 6) A rescue virus (VRS-R) was generated using the same method, with the wild-type VRS1 replacing the mutated VRS1 in the MIEP/E. (B, blot 1) The VRS1 point mutation and rescue clones were confirmed by Southern blotting. The AD169VRSBAC (W), AD169VRS-Δ (Δ), AD169VRS-R (R), and AD169VRS-P (P) BAC DNA samples were digested with EcoRI and SalI, and Southern blot analysis was performed using a 131-bp probe containing the VRS sites. (Blot 2) The AD169VRS-P clone was confirmed by PCR. The 1.2-kb PCR product was either uncut (UC), cut by XhoI into 700 and 500 bp, or cut by XbaI into 620 and 580 bp. (Blot 3) The BAC DNAs were transfected into HFF cells to produce viruses. The correct recombinant viruses were verified by PCR. Glycoprotein B (gB), zeocinr (zeo), and VRS-containing fragments were amplified from AD169VRS-Δ (ΔV), AD169VRS-P (PV), and AD169VRS-R (RV) viruses and AD169VRS-R BAC DNA (RB). (Blot 4) The 1.2-kb VRS fragment amplified by PCR from AD169VRS-R (RV) and AD169VRS-P (PV) viruses were either uncut (UC) or cut by XhoI or XbaI as indicated. (C) Growth curve analyses at an MOI of 1 (left panel) and an MOI of 0.1 (right panel) of AD169VRS-P (P) and AD169VRS-R (R) viruses. Each point was obtained from an average of triplicates.

  • FIG. 6.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 6.

    The expression of IE1 and IE2 is reduced in AD169VRS-P infection. (A) HFF cells were mock infected (M) or infected with AD169VRS-P (P) or AD169VRS-R (R) virus at an MOI of 1 for 2 h. The infected cell lysates (30 and 10 μl) were analyzed by Western blotting using a monoclonal antibody against HCMV tegument protein pp65. Actin was used as an internal control. (B) Expression of HCMV IE1 and IE2 in the VRS1 mutant and rescue viruses was measured by Northern blotting and Western blotting. HFF cells were either mock infected (M) or infected with AD169VRS-P (P) or AD169VRS-R (R) virus at an MOI of 1 or 0.1. Total RNA and protein were prepared at the indicated hpi. The IE1 RNA level was measured by Northern blotting (row 1). A cellular 7 SK RNA was used as an internal control (row 2). The IE1 and IE2 protein levels were detected by Western blotting using anti-IE1 antibody, 1B12 (row 3), or anti-IE1/2 antibody mAB810 (row 4). Actin was used as an internal control (row 5).

  • FIG. 7.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 7.

    IFNs failed to stimulate IE1 expression in the VRS1 mutant virus. HFF cells were either mock infected (M) or infected with the VRS1 mutant, AD169VRS-P (P), or the rescue virus, AD169VRS-R (R). The infected cells were then either untreated (lanes 2 and 6) or treated with IFN-α (lanes 3 and 7) or IFN-γ (lanes 4 and 8) at 2 hpi. HCMV IE1 protein was measured at 8 hpi by Western blotting using an anti-IE1 antibody, 1B12. Actin was used as an internal control.

  • FIG. 8.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 8.

    Comparison of HCMV gene expression in AD169VRS-P and AD169VRS-R viruses in an HCMV microarray. HFF cells were infected with either the VRS1 point mutant virus (P) or the rescue virus (R) at an MOI of 0.1 for 8, 12, 24, 48, or 72 h. Total RNAs were isolated from the infected cells. The cDNA from AD169VRS-P-infected cells was labeled with Cy3, and the cDNA from AD169VRS-R-infected cells was labeled with Cy5. Equal amounts of cDNAs were mixed and hybridized to the HCMV microarrays. The expression of each ORF from both viruses was compared. (A) Cluster analysis. Four major clusters are divided by the yellow lines. The ORFs expressed higher in R than in P are indicated in red, the ORFs expressed lower in R than in P are indicated in green, and the ORFs expressed equally in R and P are indicated in black. (B) Expression fold changes (R over P) of 183 ORFs. Fold changes are represented by open squares and are in logarithmic scale. The geometric averages of fold changes at each time postinfection are indicated by the red bars. (C) Percentages of ORFs expressed above twofold in R versus P are indicated.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Supplemental material

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental file 1 - Table S1. Expression ratios of each HCMV ORF in AD169VRS-P vs. AD169VRS-R at 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hpi are indicated.
      PDF document, 27K.
    • Supplemental file 2 - Fig. S1. Cluster analysis. The ratio of each HCMV ORF in AD169VRS-R vs. AD169VRS-P is indicated by the color intensity. The ORFs expressed higher in AD169VRS-R than AD169VRS-P are indicated as red; lower as green; equal as black. Similar expression patterns were clustered together.
      PDF document, 129K.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Two Gamma Interferon-Activated Site-Like Elements in the Human Cytomegalovirus Major Immediate-Early Promoter/Enhancer Are Important for Viral Replication
James Netterwald, Shaojun Yang, Weijia Wang, Salena Ghanny, Michael Cody, Patricia Soteropoulos, Bin Tian, Walter Dunn, Fenyong Liu, Hua Zhu
Journal of Virology Mar 2005, 79 (8) 5035-5046; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.79.8.5035-5046.2005

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Virology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Two Gamma Interferon-Activated Site-Like Elements in the Human Cytomegalovirus Major Immediate-Early Promoter/Enhancer Are Important for Viral Replication
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Virology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Virology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Two Gamma Interferon-Activated Site-Like Elements in the Human Cytomegalovirus Major Immediate-Early Promoter/Enhancer Are Important for Viral Replication
James Netterwald, Shaojun Yang, Weijia Wang, Salena Ghanny, Michael Cody, Patricia Soteropoulos, Bin Tian, Walter Dunn, Fenyong Liu, Hua Zhu
Journal of Virology Mar 2005, 79 (8) 5035-5046; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.79.8.5035-5046.2005
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

cytomegalovirus
Enhancer Elements, Genetic
Genes, Immediate-Early
Interferon-gamma
Promoter Regions, Genetic

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JVI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #Jvirology

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

JVI in collaboration with

American Society for Virology

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0022-538X; Online ISSN: 1098-5514