A single vertebrate DNA virus protein disarms invertebrate immunity to RNA virus infection

  1. Don B Gammon
  2. Sophie Duraffour
  3. Daniel K Rozelle
  4. Heidi Hehnly
  5. Rita Sharma
  6. Michael E Sparks
  7. Cara C West
  8. Ying Chen
  9. James J Moresco
  10. Graciela Andrei
  11. John H Connor
  12. Darryl Conte
  13. Dawn E Gundersen-Rindal
  14. William L Marshall
  15. John Yates
  16. Neal Silverman
  17. Craig C Mello  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States
  2. KU Leuven, Belgium
  3. Boston University, United States
  4. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, United States
  5. The Scripps Research Institute, United States
  6. United States Department of Agriculture, United States
  7. Merck, United States

Abstract

Virus-host interactions drive a remarkable diversity of immune responses and countermeasures. We found that two RNA viruses with broad host ranges, vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) and Sindbis virus (SINV), are completely restricted in their replication after entry into Lepidopteran cells. This restriction is overcome when cells are co-infected with vaccinia virus (VACV), a vertebrate DNA virus. Using RNAi screening, we show that Lepidopteran RNAi, Nuclear Factor-κB, and ubiquitin-proteasome pathways restrict RNA virus infection. Surprisingly, a highly-conserved, uncharacterized VACV protein, A51R, can partially overcome this virus restriction. We show that A51R is also critical for VACV replication in vertebrate cells and for pathogenesis in mice. Interestingly, A51R colocalizes with, and stabilizes, host microtubules and also associates with ubiquitin. We show that A51R promotes viral protein stability, possibly by preventing ubiquitin-dependent targeting of viral proteins for destruction. Importantly, our studies reveal exciting new opportunities to study virus-host interactions in experimentally-tractable Lepidopteran systems.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Don B Gammon

    University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sophie Duraffour

    KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Daniel K Rozelle

    Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Heidi Hehnly

    University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Rita Sharma

    University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Michael E Sparks

    Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Cara C West

    University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ying Chen

    University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. James J Moresco

    The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Graciela Andrei

    KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. John H Connor

    Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Darryl Conte

    University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Dawn E Gundersen-Rindal

    United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. William L Marshall

    Merck, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. John Yates

    The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Neal Silverman

    University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Craig C Mello

    University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    For correspondence
    craig.mello@umassmed.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ruslan Medzhitov, Yale University School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal work was approved by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Ethics Committee for Animal Care and Use (Permit number: P044-2010) and all animal guidelines and policies were in accordance with the Belgian Royal Decree of 14 November 1993 and the European Directive 86-609-EEC.When necessary, animals were euthanized by administering pentobarbital sodium.

Version history

  1. Received: March 26, 2014
  2. Accepted: June 25, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 25, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: June 26, 2014 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: July 29, 2014 (version 3)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 3,828
    views
  • 325
    downloads
  • 16
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Don B Gammon
  2. Sophie Duraffour
  3. Daniel K Rozelle
  4. Heidi Hehnly
  5. Rita Sharma
  6. Michael E Sparks
  7. Cara C West
  8. Ying Chen
  9. James J Moresco
  10. Graciela Andrei
  11. John H Connor
  12. Darryl Conte
  13. Dawn E Gundersen-Rindal
  14. William L Marshall
  15. John Yates
  16. Neal Silverman
  17. Craig C Mello
(2014)
A single vertebrate DNA virus protein disarms invertebrate immunity to RNA virus infection
eLife 3:e02910.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02910

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02910

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Mark S Lee, Peter J Tuohy ... Michael S Kuhns
    Research Advance

    CD4+ T cell activation is driven by five-module receptor complexes. The T cell receptor (TCR) is the receptor module that binds composite surfaces of peptide antigens embedded within MHCII molecules (pMHCII). It associates with three signaling modules (CD3γε, CD3δε, and CD3ζζ) to form TCR-CD3 complexes. CD4 is the coreceptor module. It reciprocally associates with TCR-CD3-pMHCII assemblies on the outside of a CD4+ T cells and with the Src kinase, LCK, on the inside. Previously, we reported that the CD4 transmembrane GGXXG and cytoplasmic juxtamembrane (C/F)CV+C motifs found in eutherian (placental mammal) CD4 have constituent residues that evolved under purifying selection (Lee et al., 2022). Expressing mutants of these motifs together in T cell hybridomas increased CD4-LCK association but reduced CD3ζ, ZAP70, and PLCγ1 phosphorylation levels, as well as IL-2 production, in response to agonist pMHCII. Because these mutants preferentially localized CD4-LCK pairs to non-raft membrane fractions, one explanation for our results was that they impaired proximal signaling by sequestering LCK away from TCR-CD3. An alternative hypothesis is that the mutations directly impacted signaling because the motifs normally play an LCK-independent role in signaling. The goal of this study was to discriminate between these possibilities. Using T cell hybridomas, our results indicate that: intracellular CD4-LCK interactions are not necessary for pMHCII-specific signal initiation; the GGXXG and (C/F)CV+C motifs are key determinants of CD4-mediated pMHCII-specific signal amplification; the GGXXG and (C/F)CV+C motifs exert their functions independently of direct CD4-LCK association. These data provide a mechanistic explanation for why residues within these motifs are under purifying selection in jawed vertebrates. The results are also important to consider for biomimetic engineering of synthetic receptors.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Jean-David Larouche, Céline M Laumont ... Claude Perreault
    Research Article

    Transposable elements (TEs) are repetitive sequences representing ~45% of the human and mouse genomes and are highly expressed by medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTECs). In this study, we investigated the role of TEs on T-cell development in the thymus. We performed multiomic analyses of TEs in human and mouse thymic cells to elucidate their role in T-cell development. We report that TE expression in the human thymus is high and shows extensive age- and cell lineage-related variations. TE expression correlates with multiple transcription factors in all cell types of the human thymus. Two cell types express particularly broad TE repertoires: mTECs and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). In mTECs, transcriptomic data suggest that TEs interact with transcription factors essential for mTEC development and function (e.g., PAX1 and REL), and immunopeptidomic data showed that TEs generate MHC-I-associated peptides implicated in thymocyte education. Notably, AIRE, FEZF2, and CHD4 regulate small yet non-redundant sets of TEs in murine mTECs. Human thymic pDCs homogenously express large numbers of TEs that likely form dsRNA, which can activate innate immune receptors, potentially explaining why thymic pDCs constitutively secrete IFN ɑ/β. This study highlights the diversity of interactions between TEs and the adaptive immune system. TEs are genetic parasites, and the two thymic cell types most affected by TEs (mTEcs and pDCs) are essential to establishing central T-cell tolerance. Therefore, we propose that orchestrating TE expression in thymic cells is critical to prevent autoimmunity in vertebrates.