Human cytomegalovirus interactome analysis identifies degradation hubs, domain associations and viral protein functions

  1. Luis V Nobre
  2. Katie Nightingale
  3. Benjamin J Ravenhill
  4. Robin Antrobus
  5. Lior Soday
  6. Jenna Nichols
  7. James A Davies
  8. Sepehr Seirafian
  9. Eddie CY Wang
  10. Andrew J Davison
  11. Gavin WG Wilkinson
  12. Richard J Stanton
  13. Edward L Huttlin
  14. Michael P Weekes  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  2. MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, United Kingdom
  3. Cardiff University School of Medicine, United Kingdom
  4. Harvard Medical School, United States
9 figures, 1 table and 8 additional files

Figures

Figure 1 with 2 supplements
Schematic of the IP strategy.

IP samples were generated and analysed in technical duplicate, using the method originally described in Huttlin et al. (2017); Huttlin et al. (2015) and discussed in detail in the Materials and …

Figure 1—figure supplement 1
Further details of the interactome.

(A) Abundance of 127 quantified canonical and non-canonical HCMV ORFs. The intensity-based absolute quantification (IBAQ) method was adapted for data from two whole cell analyses of HCMV infection …

Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1

Correlation of the number of total, unique and bait peptides from each protein identified in replicates 1 and 2.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-fig1-figsupp1-data1-v2.xlsx
Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 2

Reproducibility of interactome analyses.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-fig1-figsupp1-data2-v2.xlsx
Figure 1—figure supplement 2
Further details of interactions.

(A) Number of HCIPs per bait excluding bait-bait interactions. Four graphs with different x-axis scales illustrate the range of interacting viral or cellular proteins per bait. Gridlines are …

Figure 2 with 2 supplements
Systematic analysis of interactome data predicts novel functions for viral proteins.

DAVID software with default settings (Huang et al., 2009) was applied to determine which pathways were enriched amongst all HCIPs in the interactome, in comparison to all human proteins as …

Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Pathways enriched with p<0.05 (after Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment) and for which > 33% of the identified components interacted with a given viral bait.

For example, all members of the thick filament/muscle myosin complex detected in this interactome interacted with US28 (100%). For the bottom three complexes (UL74, US27 and UL132), each viral bait …

Figure 2—figure supplement 2
Further details of interactions according to viral protein temporal class.

(A) Functional enrichment of host HCIPs for each temporal class of viral bait. DAVID software with default settings (Huang et al., 2009) was applied to determine which pathways were enriched amongst …

Validation of interactome data by co-IP.

(A) Co-IPs validating that UL72 interacts with CCR4-NOT Transcription Complex Subunits 7 and 2 (CNOT7 and CNOT2), conducted in HEK293T cells. For all experiments in this figure, left panels show an …

Figure 4 with 1 supplement
Interaction between UL25 and NCK1 identified by domain association analysis.

(A) Table depicting significant associations between domains present in HCMV baits (top) and human or viral prey (side). Pfam domains were mapped onto every bait and prey protein in the interactome …

Figure 4—figure supplement 1
Full interaction data for UL25 and UL26, annotated as described in Figure 4B.
Figure 5 with 1 supplement
UL42 identified as a hub of E3 destruction by a combination of interactome and degradation data.

US10 interacts with LRFN3, which is rapidly downregulated from the PM during HCMV infection. (A) High-confidence cellular interactors of UL42. 57% of UL42 interactors exhibited ubiquitin protein …

Figure 5—figure supplement 1
Validation of interaction between UL42 and NEDD4 (left panel) and NEDD4L (right panel) by co-IP, conducted as described in Figure 3.

HEK293T cells were transiently transfected with the indicated plasmids, one expressing N-terminally V5-tagged UL42 and the other expressing C-terminally HA-tagged NEDD4 or NEDD4L. These proteins …

Figure 6 with 1 supplement
HCMV ORFL147C interactors function in RNA binding, splicing and transcription.

(A) Diagram of the ORFL147C coding sequence and relation to neighbouring viral genes. (B) Expression kinetics of ORFL147C, taken from Weekes et al. (2014). Data was taken from experiments WCL2 and …

Figure 6—source data 1

Growth analysis of an ORFL147C-deficient recombinant.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-fig6-data1-v2.xlsx
Figure 6—source data 2

Tandem mass tag-based proteomics analysis of ORFL147C protein expression.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-fig6-data2-v2.xlsx
Figure 6—figure supplement 1
Further details of ORFL147C interactions, and construction of the ΔORFL147C virus.

(A) Full interaction data for ORFL147C, annotated as described in Figure 4B. (B) Construction of a viral ORFL147C deletion mutant. The three most N-terminal methionines in ORF147C were mutated …

Overlap in functions targeted by different viruses.

(A) DAVID analysis of pathway enrichment among 176 HCIPs that interacted both with HCMV baits (this study) and KSHV baits (Davis et al., 2015), in comparison to all human proteins as background. …

Author response image 1
Author response image 2

Tables

Key resources table
Reagent typeDesignationSource or referenceIdentifiersAdditional
information
Strain, strain background (HCMV)HCMV MerlinStanton et al., 2010RCMV1111
Strain, strain background (HCMV)HCMV Merlin UL36-GFP deltaORFL147CThis paperRCMV2697Available from Dr Michael Weekes’ lab, University of Cambridge
Strain, strain background (HCMV)HCMV Merlin UL36-GFPNightingale et al., 2018RCMV2582
Strain, strain background (Escherichia coli)E. coli. (α-Select Silver Competent Cells)BiolineCat#BIO-85026
Cell line (Homo-sapiens)HFFF immortalised with human telomerase (HFFF-TERT)McSharry et al., 2001
Cell line (Homo-sapiens)Human Embryonic Kidney 293 T cellsMenzies et al., 2018ATCC Cat#CRL-3216, RRID:CVCL_0063
AntibodyAnti-V5 Agarose Affinity GelSigma-AldrichCat#A7345; RRID:AB_10062721(30 µl/mL)
AntibodyMouse monoclonal anti-GAPDHR and D SystemsCat#MAB5718; RRID:AB_10892505(1:10.000)
AntibodyRabbit polyclonal anti-CalnexinLifeSpan BiosciencesCat#LS-B6881; RRID:AB_11186721(1:10.000)
AntibodyRabbit monoclonal anti-HA (C29F4)Cell Signaling TechnologiesCat#3724S; RRID:AB_1549585(1:1000)
AntibodyMouse monoclonal anti-V5ThermoCat#R960-25; RRID:AB_2556564(1:5000)
AntibodyRabbit polyclonal anti-CNOT2Novus BiologicalsCat#NBP2-56034; RRID:AB_2801658(1:1000)
AntibodyRabbit monoclonal anti-CNOT7AbcamCat#ab195587; RRID:AB_2801659(1:1000)
AntibodyMouse monoclonal anti-NEDD4R and D SystemsCat#MAB6218; RRID:AB_10920762(1:1000)
AntibodyIRDye 680RD goat anti-mouse IgGLI-CORCat#925–68070, RRID:AB_2651128(1:10.000)
AntibodyIRDye 800CW goat anti-rabbit IgGLI-CORCat#925–32211, RRID:AB_2651127(1:10.000)
AntibodyIRDye 680RD goat anti-rabbit IgGLI-CORCat#926–68071; RRID:AB_10956166(1:10.000)
AntibodyIRDye 800CW goat anti-mouse IgGLI-CORCat#926–32210; RRID:AB_621842(1:10.000)
AntibodyHuman TruStain FcXBioLegendCat#422302; RRID:AB_28189861:20
Recombinant DNA reagentpHAGE-pSFFVNightingale et al., 2018
Recombinant DNA reagentpDONR223Nightingale et al., 2018
Recombinant DNA reagentpDONR221-MBLN1Harvard PlasmIDCat#HsCD00079833
Recombinant DNA reagentpDONR221-CUGBP1Harvard PlasmIDCat#HsCD00039403
Recombinant DNA reagentpOTB7-CUL4AHarvard PlasmIDCat#HsCD00325140
Recombinant DNA reagentpCMV-SPORT6-NEDD4LHarvard PlasmIDCat#HsCD00337956
Recombinant DNA reagentpENTR223-NCK1Harvard PlasmIDCat#HsCD00370605
Recombinant DNA reagentpDONR223-CNOT2Harvard PlasmIDCat#HsCD00080019
Recombinant DNA reagentpHAGE-CNOT7Harvard PlasmIDCat#HsCD00453329
Recombinant DNA reagentPHAGE-P-CMVt-N-HA Nedd4 wtAddgeneCat#24124
Recombinant DNA reagentpDONR221-LRFN3Harvard PlasmIDCat#HsCD00041564
Sequence-based reagentM13-FGENEWIZPCR primersGTAAAACGACGGCCAG
Sequence-based reagentM13-RGENEWIZPCR primersCAGGAAACAGCTATGAC
Sequence-based reagentpHAGE-pSFFV-SeqThis paperPCR primersCGCGCCAGTCCTCCGATTG
Sequence-based reagentGAW-CMVp-FThis paperPCR primersGGGACAAGTTTGTACAAAAAAGCAGCTGAAGACACCGGGACCGATC
Sequence-based reagentattB2-V5-RThis paperPCR primersGGGGACCACTTTGTACAAGAAAGCTGGGTTTACGTAGAATCAAGACCTAGGAGC
Peptide, recombinant proteinV5 Epitope TagAlpha Diagnostic InternationalCat#SP-59199–5
Peptide, recombinant proteinTrypsinPromegaCat#V5111
Commercial assay or kitBCA Protein Assay KitThermo FisherCat#23227
Commercial assay or kitMicro BCA Protein Assay KitThermo FisherCat#23235
Commercial assay or kitRNeasy Mini KitQiagenCat#74104
Commercial assay or kitEmpore SPE DisksSupelcoCat#66883 U
Commercial assay or kitGoScript Reverse Transcriptase kitPromegaCat#A5001
Commercial assay or kitPower SYBR Green PCR Master MixThermo FisherCat#4367659
Commercial assay or kitGateway BP Clonase II Enzyme MixInvitrogenCat#56481
Commercial assay or kitGateway LR Clonase Enzyme MixInvitrogenCat#56484
Chemical compound, drugDexamethasoneSigma-AldrichCat#D4902
Chemical compound, drugDL-DithiothreitolSigma-AldrichCat#43815–1G
Software, algorithm‘MassPike’, a Sequest-based software pipeline for quantitative proteomics.Professor Steven Gygi’s lab, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Software, algorithmSEQUESTEng et al., 1994
Software, algorithmDAVID softwarehttps://david.ncifcrf.gov/DAVID, RRID:SCR_001881
Software, algorithmReactome softwarehttps://reactome.org/Reactome, RRID:SCR_003485
Software, algorithmImage Studio LiteLI-CORVer. 5.2; Image Studio Lite, RRID:SCR_013715
Software, algorithmCytoscapeThe Cytoscape ConsortiumVer 3.7.1; Cytoscape,
RRID:SCR_003032
Software, algorithmDNASTAR Lasergene - SeqBuilderDNASTAR, IncVer. 12; DNASTAR: Lasergene Core Suite, RRID:SCR_000291
Software, algorithmFlowJoFlowJoVer. 10; FlowJo, RRID:SCR_008520
Software, algorithmCompPassSowa et al., 2009
Software, algorithmCompPass PlusHuttlin et al., 2015
OtherOrbitrap Fusion Mass SpectrometerThermoFisher ScientificCat#IQLAAEGAAP FADBMBCXInstrument
OtherOrbitrap Fusion Lumos Mass SpectrometerThermoFisher ScientificCat#IQLAAEGAAP FADBMBHQInstrument
OtherRaw Mass Spectrometry Data FilesThis paperProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner
repository with dataset identifier PXD014845.
Raw data

Additional files

Supplementary file 1

Details of the interactome.

(A) Relative abundance of all canonical and non-canonical viral proteins quantified in experiment whole cell lysate 3 (WCL3) from Weekes et al. (2014) and whole cell lysate series three from Fielding et al. (2017). Further details of the calculations employed are given in Figure 1—figure supplement 1A and the Materials and methods section. (B) Details of all 172 baits. Bait expression was verified by IB, MS or RT-qPCR (Figure 1—figure supplement 1B). (C) Relative abundance of all human proteins expressed in HFFFs, calculated as described in (A). The ‘rank’ column indicates the ranked average IBAQ abundance. The most abundant protein calculated by this method was ranked 1, and least abundant ranked 8129. (D) Coding sequences of all viral genes used in this study. A six base-pair linker region, a V5 tag then a stop codon directly followed each sequence (Key Resources Table). Codon usage was optimised for expression for US14, US17 and UL74. (E) Oligonucleotides and templates employed in the generation and RT-qPCR of each viral vector. (F) Oligonucleotides and templates employed in the generation and RT-qPCR of each human overexpression vector.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-supp1-v2.xlsx
Supplementary file 2

Full interactome data.

(A) Numbers of HCIPs per bait, excluding bait-bait interactions. (B) HCIPs for each bait (see Figure 1 and the Materials and methods section for details of the filtering employed, and the scores shown in this table). For baits solubilised in NP40, VHCIPs are shown in green. The ‘Prey IBAQ rank’ column shows the ranked IBAQ abundance from Supplementary file 1C, and gives an indication of how abundant each prey protein was in infected HFFFs. A range of ranks is shown where more than one isoform of a protein could be detected, in order to reflect data for all isoforms of that protein. Abundantly expressed prey may be more easily validated using IB with antibodies against an endogenous protein; less abundant proteins may require overexpression to enable detection. (C) All detected interacting proteins for each bait, without filtering.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-supp2-v2.xlsx
Supplementary file 3

Validation of the interactome data from BioGRID, IntAct, Uniprot, MINT and Virus Mentha (Calderone et al., 2015; Chatr-Aryamontri et al., 2013; Licata et al., 2012; Orchard et al., 2014).

Columns give details of the database(s) that included each interaction, the method used, and cell type employed. Interactome scores from the present study are shown in columns H-K. Column L shows whether a given interaction was validated in this interactome. A value of 1 indicates validation; 0 indicates detection of the interaction but failure to pass stringent scoring thresholds; ‘ND’ indicates the interaction was not detected by the interactome. Column M shows the ranked abundance of each human prey protein from Supplementary file 1C. Interactions that were not detected in this study included a number of prey proteins that could not be detected in HFFFs. Further details are given in the Materials and methods section.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-supp3-v2.xlsx
Supplementary file 4

Enriched functional pathways, protein components and interacting viral baits.

(A) All enriched functional pathways amongst all human HCIPs (p<0.05, after Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment). Column D shows the bait(s) interacting with each pathway component. (B) Further details of viral baits interacting with components of each pathway. Two values are shown: ‘% interaction’, the percentage of human interactors of each bait that belonged to the pathway (relates to Figure 2, where viral baits are included if >33% of interactors belonged to a given pathway). ‘% function’ illustrates the percentage of proteins from the pathway that interacted with the bait (relates to Figure 2—figure supplement 1, where viral baits are included if >33% of the pathway components identified interacted with a given viral bait). Values of >33% are coloured in this table. The ‘count’ column shows the total number of interacting pathway members; Figure 2 and Figure 2—figure supplement 1 included data with counts ≥ 2. (C) All enriched functional pathways amongst human HCIPs from each temporal class (p<0.05, after Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment). Column E shows the bait(s) interacting with each pathway component. This data underlies Figure 2—figure supplement 2A. (D) Temporal interactions of viral bait and viral prey proteins. This data underlies Figure 2—figure supplement 2B.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-supp4-v2.xlsx
Supplementary file 5

Full data underlying the domain-domain association predictions.

(A) HCMV proteins that contain each described Pfam domain. Links are given to additional information on each domain on the Pfam website. Overall 96 domains have been identified in HCMV proteins by Pfam, however only 10 domains were identified in two or more baits. Only this subset was examined to increase confidence in domain association predictions. (B) Subset of Supplementary file 2B illustrating individual protein-protein interactions that underpin data shown in Figure 4A.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-supp5-v2.xlsx
Supplementary file 6

Proteins degraded early during HCMV infection from Nightingale et al. (2018), using sensitive criteria.

Interactome data identified viral baits for 31 of these degraded proteins.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-supp6-v2.xlsx
Supplementary file 7

Enrichment of functional pathways among proteins interacting with (A) ORFL147C, using DAVID software and a maximum p-value of 0.3; (B) ORFL147C, using the Reactome database and ≥4 entities per enriched pathway; (C) both HCMV and KSHV (Davis et al., 2015), using DAVID software and a maximum p-value of 0.05; (D) only HCMV as described in Figure 5C, using DAVID software and a maximum p-value of 0.01.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-supp7-v2.xlsx
Transparent reporting form
https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/49894/elife-49894-transrepform-v2.pdf

Download links