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

Abstract

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) extensively modulates host cells, downregulating >900 human proteins during viral replication and degrading ≥133 proteins shortly after infection. The mechanism of degradation of most host proteins remains unresolved, and the functions of many viral proteins are incompletely characterised. We performed a mass spectrometry-based interactome analysis of 169 tagged, stably-expressed canonical strain Merlin HCMV proteins, and two non-canonical HCMV proteins, in infected cells. This identified a network of >3,400 virus-host and >150 virus-virus protein interactions, providing insights into functions for multiple viral genes. Domain analysis predicted binding of the viral UL25 protein to SH3 domains of NCK Adaptor Protein-1. Viral interacting proteins were identified for 31/133 degraded host targets. Finally, the uncharacterised, non-canonical ORFL147C protein was found to interact with elements of the mRNA splicing machinery, and a mutational study suggested its importance in viral replication. The interactome data will be important for future studies of herpesvirus infection.

Data availability

All data analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium (http://www.proteomexchange.org/) via the PRIDE (Vizcaino et al., 2016) partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD014845.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Luis V Nobre

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Katie Nightingale

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Benjamin J Ravenhill

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Robin Antrobus

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Lior Soday

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jenna Nichols

    MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. James A Davies

    Division of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3569-4500
  8. Sepehr Seirafian

    Division of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Eddie CY Wang

    Division of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Andrew J Davison

    MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Gavin WG Wilkinson

    Division of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5623-0126
  12. Richard J Stanton

    Division of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6799-1182
  13. Edward L Huttlin

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Michael P Weekes

    Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    mpw1001@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3196-5545

Funding

Wellcome (108070/Z/15/Z)

  • Michael P Weekes

Medical Research Council (MR/L018373/1)

  • Eddie CY Wang
  • Gavin WG Wilkinson
  • Richard J Stanton

Medical Research Council (MR/P001602/1)

  • Eddie CY Wang
  • Gavin WG Wilkinson
  • Richard J Stanton

Wellcome (WT090323MA)

  • Eddie CY Wang
  • Gavin WG Wilkinson
  • Richard J Stanton

Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12014/3)

  • Andrew J Davison

National Institutes of Health (U24 HG006673)

  • Edward L Huttlin

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

Copyright

© 2019, Nobre 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

  • 6,385
    views
  • 811
    downloads
  • 89
    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. 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
(2019)
Human cytomegalovirus interactome analysis identifies degradation hubs, domain associations and viral protein functions
eLife 8:e49894.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49894

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49894

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Brian DePasquale, Carlos D Brody, Jonathan W Pillow
    Research Article Updated

    Accumulating evidence to make decisions is a core cognitive function. Previous studies have tended to estimate accumulation using either neural or behavioral data alone. Here, we develop a unified framework for modeling stimulus-driven behavior and multi-neuron activity simultaneously. We applied our method to choices and neural recordings from three rat brain regions—the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the frontal orienting fields (FOF), and the anterior-dorsal striatum (ADS)—while subjects performed a pulse-based accumulation task. Each region was best described by a distinct accumulation model, which all differed from the model that best described the animal’s choices. FOF activity was consistent with an accumulator where early evidence was favored while the ADS reflected near perfect accumulation. Neural responses within an accumulation framework unveiled a distinct association between each brain region and choice. Choices were better predicted from all regions using a comprehensive, accumulation-based framework and different brain regions were found to differentially reflect choice-related accumulation signals: FOF and ADS both reflected choice but ADS showed more instances of decision vacillation. Previous studies relating neural data to behaviorally inferred accumulation dynamics have implicitly assumed that individual brain regions reflect the whole-animal level accumulator. Our results suggest that different brain regions represent accumulated evidence in dramatically different ways and that accumulation at the whole-animal level may be constructed from a variety of neural-level accumulators.