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 …
(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 …
Correlation of the number of total, unique and bait peptides from each protein identified in replicates 1 and 2.
Reproducibility of interactome analyses.
(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 …
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 …
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 …
(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 …
(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 …
(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 …
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 …
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 …
(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 …
Growth analysis of an ORFL147C-deficient recombinant.
Tandem mass tag-based proteomics analysis of ORFL147C protein expression.
(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 …
(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. …
Reagent type | Designation | Source or reference | Identifiers | Additional information |
---|---|---|---|---|
Strain, strain background (HCMV) | HCMV Merlin | Stanton et al., 2010 | RCMV1111 | |
Strain, strain background (HCMV) | HCMV Merlin UL36-GFP deltaORFL147C | This paper | RCMV2697 | Available from Dr Michael Weekes’ lab, University of Cambridge |
Strain, strain background (HCMV) | HCMV Merlin UL36-GFP | Nightingale et al., 2018 | RCMV2582 | |
Strain, strain background (Escherichia coli) | E. coli. (α-Select Silver Competent Cells) | Bioline | Cat#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 cells | Menzies et al., 2018 | ATCC Cat#CRL-3216, RRID:CVCL_0063 | |
Antibody | Anti-V5 Agarose Affinity Gel | Sigma-Aldrich | Cat#A7345; RRID:AB_10062721 | (30 µl/mL) |
Antibody | Mouse monoclonal anti-GAPDH | R and D Systems | Cat#MAB5718; RRID:AB_10892505 | (1:10.000) |
Antibody | Rabbit polyclonal anti-Calnexin | LifeSpan Biosciences | Cat#LS-B6881; RRID:AB_11186721 | (1:10.000) |
Antibody | Rabbit monoclonal anti-HA (C29F4) | Cell Signaling Technologies | Cat#3724S; RRID:AB_1549585 | (1:1000) |
Antibody | Mouse monoclonal anti-V5 | Thermo | Cat#R960-25; RRID:AB_2556564 | (1:5000) |
Antibody | Rabbit polyclonal anti-CNOT2 | Novus Biologicals | Cat#NBP2-56034; RRID:AB_2801658 | (1:1000) |
Antibody | Rabbit monoclonal anti-CNOT7 | Abcam | Cat#ab195587; RRID:AB_2801659 | (1:1000) |
Antibody | Mouse monoclonal anti-NEDD4 | R and D Systems | Cat#MAB6218; RRID:AB_10920762 | (1:1000) |
Antibody | IRDye 680RD goat anti-mouse IgG | LI-COR | Cat#925–68070, RRID:AB_2651128 | (1:10.000) |
Antibody | IRDye 800CW goat anti-rabbit IgG | LI-COR | Cat#925–32211, RRID:AB_2651127 | (1:10.000) |
Antibody | IRDye 680RD goat anti-rabbit IgG | LI-COR | Cat#926–68071; RRID:AB_10956166 | (1:10.000) |
Antibody | IRDye 800CW goat anti-mouse IgG | LI-COR | Cat#926–32210; RRID:AB_621842 | (1:10.000) |
Antibody | Human TruStain FcX | BioLegend | Cat#422302; RRID:AB_2818986 | 1:20 |
Recombinant DNA reagent | pHAGE-pSFFV | Nightingale et al., 2018 | ||
Recombinant DNA reagent | pDONR223 | Nightingale et al., 2018 | ||
Recombinant DNA reagent | pDONR221-MBLN1 | Harvard PlasmID | Cat#HsCD00079833 | |
Recombinant DNA reagent | pDONR221-CUGBP1 | Harvard PlasmID | Cat#HsCD00039403 | |
Recombinant DNA reagent | pOTB7-CUL4A | Harvard PlasmID | Cat#HsCD00325140 | |
Recombinant DNA reagent | pCMV-SPORT6-NEDD4L | Harvard PlasmID | Cat#HsCD00337956 | |
Recombinant DNA reagent | pENTR223-NCK1 | Harvard PlasmID | Cat#HsCD00370605 | |
Recombinant DNA reagent | pDONR223-CNOT2 | Harvard PlasmID | Cat#HsCD00080019 | |
Recombinant DNA reagent | pHAGE-CNOT7 | Harvard PlasmID | Cat#HsCD00453329 | |
Recombinant DNA reagent | PHAGE-P-CMVt-N-HA Nedd4 wt | Addgene | Cat#24124 | |
Recombinant DNA reagent | pDONR221-LRFN3 | Harvard PlasmID | Cat#HsCD00041564 | |
Sequence-based reagent | M13-F | GENEWIZ | PCR primers | GTAAAACGACGGCCAG |
Sequence-based reagent | M13-R | GENEWIZ | PCR primers | CAGGAAACAGCTATGAC |
Sequence-based reagent | pHAGE-pSFFV-Seq | This paper | PCR primers | CGCGCCAGTCCTCCGATTG |
Sequence-based reagent | GAW-CMVp-F | This paper | PCR primers | GGGACAAGTTTGTACAAAAAAGCAGCTGAAGACACCGGGACCGATC |
Sequence-based reagent | attB2-V5-R | This paper | PCR primers | GGGGACCACTTTGTACAAGAAAGCTGGGTTTACGTAGAATCAAGACCTAGGAGC |
Peptide, recombinant protein | V5 Epitope Tag | Alpha Diagnostic International | Cat#SP-59199–5 | |
Peptide, recombinant protein | Trypsin | Promega | Cat#V5111 | |
Commercial assay or kit | BCA Protein Assay Kit | Thermo Fisher | Cat#23227 | |
Commercial assay or kit | Micro BCA Protein Assay Kit | Thermo Fisher | Cat#23235 | |
Commercial assay or kit | RNeasy Mini Kit | Qiagen | Cat#74104 | |
Commercial assay or kit | Empore SPE Disks | Supelco | Cat#66883 U | |
Commercial assay or kit | GoScript Reverse Transcriptase kit | Promega | Cat#A5001 | |
Commercial assay or kit | Power SYBR Green PCR Master Mix | Thermo Fisher | Cat#4367659 | |
Commercial assay or kit | Gateway BP Clonase II Enzyme Mix | Invitrogen | Cat#56481 | |
Commercial assay or kit | Gateway LR Clonase Enzyme Mix | Invitrogen | Cat#56484 | |
Chemical compound, drug | Dexamethasone | Sigma-Aldrich | Cat#D4902 | |
Chemical compound, drug | DL-Dithiothreitol | Sigma-Aldrich | Cat#43815–1G | |
Software, algorithm | ‘MassPike’, a Sequest-based software pipeline for quantitative proteomics. | Professor Steven Gygi’s lab, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. | ||
Software, algorithm | SEQUEST | Eng et al., 1994 | ||
Software, algorithm | DAVID software | https://david.ncifcrf.gov/ | DAVID, RRID:SCR_001881 | |
Software, algorithm | Reactome software | https://reactome.org/ | Reactome, RRID:SCR_003485 | |
Software, algorithm | Image Studio Lite | LI-COR | Ver. 5.2; Image Studio Lite, RRID:SCR_013715 | |
Software, algorithm | Cytoscape | The Cytoscape Consortium | Ver 3.7.1; Cytoscape, RRID:SCR_003032 | |
Software, algorithm | DNASTAR Lasergene - SeqBuilder | DNASTAR, Inc | Ver. 12; DNASTAR: Lasergene Core Suite, RRID:SCR_000291 | |
Software, algorithm | FlowJo | FlowJo | Ver. 10; FlowJo, RRID:SCR_008520 | |
Software, algorithm | CompPass | Sowa et al., 2009 | ||
Software, algorithm | CompPass Plus | Huttlin et al., 2015 | ||
Other | Orbitrap Fusion Mass Spectrometer | ThermoFisher Scientific | Cat#IQLAAEGAAP FADBMBCX | Instrument |
Other | Orbitrap Fusion Lumos Mass Spectrometer | ThermoFisher Scientific | Cat#IQLAAEGAAP FADBMBHQ | Instrument |
Other | Raw Mass Spectrometry Data Files | This paper | ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with dataset identifier PXD014845. | Raw data |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.