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.

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.

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

  • 3,852
    views
  • 329
    downloads
  • 19
    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. Cell Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Armando Montoya-Garcia, Idaira M Guerrero-Fonseca ... Michael Schnoor
    Research Article

    Arpin was discovered as an inhibitor of the Arp2/3 complex localized at the lamellipodial tip of fibroblasts, where it regulated migration steering. Recently, we showed that arpin stabilizes the epithelial barrier in an Arp2/3-dependent manner. However, the expression and functions of arpin in endothelial cells (EC) have not yet been described. Arpin mRNA and protein are expressed in EC and downregulated by pro-inflammatory cytokines. Arpin depletion in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells causes the formation of actomyosin stress fibers leading to increased permeability in an Arp2/3-independent manner. Instead, inhibitors of ROCK1 and ZIPK, kinases involved in the generation of stress fibers, normalize the loss-of-arpin effects on actin filaments and permeability. Arpin-deficient mice are viable but show a characteristic vascular phenotype in the lung including edema, microhemorrhage, and vascular congestion, increased F-actin levels, and vascular permeability. Our data show that, apart from being an Arp2/3 inhibitor, arpin is also a regulator of actomyosin contractility and endothelial barrier integrity.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    Alexandra a Aybar-Torres, Lennon A Saldarriaga ... Lei Jin
    Research Article

    The significance of STING1 gene in tissue inflammation and cancer immunotherapy has been increasingly recognized. Intriguingly, common human STING1 alleles R71H-G230A-R293Q (HAQ) and G230A-R293Q (AQ) are carried by ~60% of East Asians and ~40% of Africans, respectively. Here, we examine the modulatory effects of HAQ, AQ alleles on STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy (SAVI), an autosomal dominant, fatal inflammatory disease caused by gain-of-function human STING1 mutations. CD4 T cellpenia is evident in SAVI patients and mouse models. Using Sting1 knock-in mice expressing common human STING1 alleles HAQ, AQ, and Q293, we found that HAQ, AQ, and Q293 splenocytes resist STING1-mediated cell death ex vivo, establishing a critical role of STING1 residue 293 in cell death. The HAQ/SAVI(N153S) and AQ/SAVI(N153S) mice did not have CD4 T cellpenia. The HAQ/SAVI(N153S), AQ/SAVI(N153S) mice have more (~10-fold, ~20-fold, respectively) T-regs than WT/SAVI(N153S) mice. Remarkably, while they have comparable TBK1, IRF3, and NFκB activation as the WT/SAVI, the AQ/SAVI mice have no tissue inflammation, regular body weight, and normal lifespan. We propose that STING1 activation promotes tissue inflammation by depleting T-regs cells in vivo. Billions of modern humans have the dominant HAQ, AQ alleles. STING1 research and STING1-targeting immunotherapy should consider STING1 heterogeneity in humans.