HIV-1 Vif disrupts phosphatase feedback regulation at the kinetochore, leading to a pronounced pseudo-metaphase arrest

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Ghone et al show that HIV-1 Vif causes a pseudo-metaphase arrest rather than a G2 arrest. The metaphase arrest correlates with misregulation of the kinetochore which could be explained by the loss of phosphatase functions that determine chromosome-microtubule interactions.

Strengths:

The single-cell imaging using different reporters of cell cycle progression is very elegant and the quantitation is convincing. The authors clearly show that what others have characterized as a G2 arrest by flow cytometry is somewhat later in metaphase and correlates with kinetochore misregulation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The major problem with the paper is trying to connect what is observed in tumor cell lines with actual infections in primary T cells. While all of the descriptive work in cell lines is convincing, none of these cells are relevant targets and tumor cells have different cell death and cell cycle regulation than primary T cells. Thus, while Vif might well do all of the things described in the manuscript, it is a stretch to connect any of it to what happens in vivo.

(2) Line 109 and elsewhere. The ability of Vif to cause cell cycle arrest and bind PP2A subunits is not a completely conserved feature. Rather, it is quite variable in different HIV-1 strains. (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.04.123 and https://elifesciences.org/articles/53036). Therefore, it is necessary for the authors to quite clearly use strain designations in the manuscript rather than a generic "Vif", and to more clearly describe the viruses being used.

(3) Figure 5: This figure shows disruption of PP2A-B56 at the kinetochores. However, is this specific to the kinetochores? Since Vif has been described to more broadly degrade PP2A-B56, could this not be a result of a more general decrease in PP2A activity throughout the cell?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

The authors characterize the cell-cycle arrest induced by HIV-1 Vif in infected cells. They show this arrest is not at G2/M as previously thought but during metaphase. They show that the metaphase plate forms normally but progression to anaphase is massively delayed, and chromosome segregation is dysregulated in a manner consistent with impaired assembly of microtubules at the kinetochore. This correlates with the lack of recruitment of B56-subunits of PP2 phosphatase which are known degradation targets of Vif, suggesting that this weakens and unbalances the microtubule-mediated forces on the separating chromosomes.

Strengths

The authors present a very well-performed set of quantitative live cell imaging experiments that convincingly show a difference between Vif and Vpr-mediated cell cycle arrests. Through an in-depth characterization of the Vif-mediated block in metaphase, they make a strong case for this phenotype being tied to the degradation of PP2-B56 by Vif. Furthermore, it is important that they have performed most of these experiments with virally infected cells, meaning that their observations are observable at relevant viral expression levels of Vif.

Weaknesses

Experimentally there is very little to criticize with respect to the cellular systems used. Data from 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.04.123 has identified selective mutants that fail to degrade B56 while maintaining A3G degradation by Cul5, and it would be nice to confirm that such a mutant behaves like the delta-Vif virus when examining metaphase, but selective ablation of B56 during mitosis to mimic Vif is would expect to be very challenging and beyond the scope.

Where I would raise some criticism is in the relevance of these observations to the replication and pathogenesis of the virus itself, which the authors do not address or discuss. Firstly, despite clear data that both Vpr and Vif can lead to a cell cycle arrest in cycling cells, it has never been particularly clear why the virus does this. While I would agree with the authors that Vif results in the metaphase arrest through targeting B56-PP2A, this may not be the reason WHY the virus targets one of the cell's major phosphatases, but rather a knock-on effect of doing so. I appreciate that this is beyond the scope of the study, but it is something I feel should be discussed rather than the narrow mechanistic points made in the discussion. Secondly, the authors suggest that this activity of Vif is a major cause of apoptosis in infected cells and perhaps CD4+ T cell depletion in vivo. It would be good to quantify how much apoptosis is Vif-dependent in infected primary human CD4+ T cells rather than transformed tumor cells, and whether this correlates with the Vif-mediated induction of a pseudometaphase.