1. Cell Biology
  2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Download icon

HIV-1 nuclear import in macrophages is regulated by CPSF6-capsid interactions at the Nuclear Pore Complex

Research Article
  • Cited 52
  • Views 3,336
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e41800 doi: 10.7554/eLife.41800

Abstract

Nuclear entry of HIV-1 replication complexes through intact nuclear pore complexes is critical for successful infection. The host protein cleavage-and-polyadenylation-specificity-factor-6 (CPSF6) has been implicated in different stages of early HIV-1 replication. Applying quantitative microscopy of HIV-1 reverse-transcription and pre-integration-complexes (RTC/PIC), we show that CPSF6 is strongly recruited to nuclear replication complexes but absent from cytoplasmic RTC/PIC in primary human macrophages. Depletion of CPSF6 or lack of CPSF6 binding led to accumulation of HIV-1 subviral complexes at the nuclear envelope of macrophages and reduced infectivity. Two-color stimulated-emission-depletion microscopy indicated that under these circumstances HIV-1 complexes are retained inside the nuclear pore and undergo CA-multimer dependent CPSF6 clustering adjacent to the nuclear basket. We propose that nuclear entry of HIV-1 subviral complexes in macrophages is mediated by consecutive binding of Nup153 and CPSF6 to the hexameric CA lattice.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David Alejandro Bejarano

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ke Peng

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Vibor Laketa

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kathleen Börner

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. K Laurence Jost

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Bojana Lucic

    Center for Integrative Infectious Diseases, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Bärbel Glass

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Marina Lusic

    Center for Integrative Infectious Diseases, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0120-3569
  9. Barbara Müller

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5726-5585
  10. Hans-Georg Kräusslich

    Department of Infectious Diseases, Virology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    For correspondence
    hans-georg.kraeusslich@med.uni-heidelberg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8756-329X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB1129)

  • Barbara Müller
  • Hans-Georg Kräusslich

Deutsches Zentrum für Infektionsforschung (TTU HIV)

  • Hans-Georg Kräusslich

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SPP1923)

  • Hans-Georg Kräusslich

Heidelberg Biosciences International Graduate School

  • David Alejandro Bejarano

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Wesley I Sundquist, University of Utah School of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: September 7, 2018
  2. Accepted: January 16, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 23, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 5, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Bejarano et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,336
    Page views
  • 693
    Downloads
  • 52
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

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

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

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Mikel Garcia-Marcos
    Research Article Updated

    It has become evident that activation of heterotrimeric G-proteins by cytoplasmic proteins that are not G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) plays a role in physiology and disease. Despite sharing the same biochemical guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) activity as GPCRs in vitro, the mechanisms by which these cytoplasmic proteins trigger G-protein-dependent signaling in cells have not been elucidated. Heterotrimeric G-proteins can give rise to two active signaling species, Gα-GTP and dissociated Gβγ, with different downstream effectors, but how non-receptor GEFs affect the levels of these two species in cells is not known. Here, a systematic comparison of GPCRs and three unrelated non-receptor proteins with GEF activity in vitro (GIV/Girdin, AGS1/Dexras1, and Ric-8A) revealed high divergence in their contribution to generating Gα-GTP and free Gβγ in cells directly measured with live-cell biosensors. These findings demonstrate fundamental differences in how receptor and non-receptor G-protein activators promote signaling in cells despite sharing similar biochemical activities in vitro.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Patrick Morley Willoughby et al.
    Research Article Updated

    In emerging epithelial tissues, cells undergo dramatic rearrangements to promote tissue shape changes. Dividing cells remain interconnected via transient cytokinetic bridges. Bridges are cleaved during abscission and currently, the consequences of disrupting abscission in developing epithelia are not well understood. We show that the Rab GTPase Rab25 localizes near cytokinetic midbodies and likely coordinates abscission through endomembrane trafficking in the epithelium of the zebrafish gastrula during epiboly. In maternal-zygotic Rab25a and Rab25b mutant embryos, morphogenic activity tears open persistent apical cytokinetic bridges that failed to undergo timely abscission. Cytokinesis defects result in anisotropic cell morphologies that are associated with a reduction of contractile actomyosin networks. This slows cell rearrangements and alters the viscoelastic responses of the tissue, all of which likely contribute to delayed epiboly. We present a model in which Rab25 trafficking coordinates cytokinetic bridge abscission and cortical actin density, impacting local cell shape changes and tissue-scale forces.