Cell membrane glycan contents are biochemical factors that constitute a kinetic barrier to viral particle uptake in a protein-nonspecific manner

Joint Public Review:

This manuscript tests the notion that bulky membrane glycoproteins suppress viral infection through non-specific interactions. Using a suite of biochemical, biophysical, and computational methods in multiple contexts (ex vivo, in vitro, and in silico), the authors collect evidence supporting the notion that (1) a wide range of surface glycoproteins erect an energy barrier for the virus to form stable adhesive interface needed for fusion and uptake and (2) the total amount of glycan, independent of their molecular identity, additively enhanced the suppression.

As a functional assay the authors focus on viral infection starting from the assumption that a physical boundary modulated by overexpressing a protein-of-interest could prevent viral entry and subsequent infection. Here they find that glycan content (measured using the PNA lectin) of the overexpressed protein and total molecular weight, that includes amino acid weight and the glycan weight, is negatively correlated with viral infection. They continue to demonstrate that it is in effect the total glycan content, using a variety of lectin labelling, that is responsible for reduced infection in cells. Because the authors do not find a loss in virus binding this allows them to hypothesize that the glycan content presents a barrier for the stable membrane-membrane contact between virus and cell. They subsequently set out to determine the effective radius of the proteins at the membrane and demonstrate that on a supported lipid bilayer the glycosylated proteins do not transition from the mushroom to the brush regime at the densities used. Finally, using Super Resolution microscopy they find that above an effective radius of 5 nm proteins are excluded from the virus-cell interface.

The experimental design does not present major concerns and the results provide insight on a biophysical mechanism according to which, repulsion forces between branched glycan chains of highly glycosylated proteins exert a kinetic energy barrier that limits the formation of a membrane/viral interface required for infection.

However several general and specific concerns remain that the author is recommended to address before their claims as above are compelling.

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

(1) For many enveloped viruses, the attachment factors - paradoxically - are also surface glycoproteins, often complexed with a distinct fusion protein. The authors note here that the glycoportiens do not inhibit the initial binding, but only limit the stability of the adhesive interface needed for subsequent membrane fusion and viral uptake. How these antagonistic tendencies might play out should be discussed.

(2) Unlike polymers tethered to solid surface undergoing mushroom-to-brush transition in density-dependent manner, the glycoproteins at the cell surface are of course mobile (presumably in a density-dependent manner). They can thus redistribute in spatial patterns, which serve to minimize the free energy. I suggest the authors explicitly address how these considerations influence the in vitro reconstitution assays seeking to assess the glycosylation-dependent protein packing.

(3) The discussion of the role of excluded volume in steric repulsion between glycoprotein needs clarification. As presented, it's unclear what the role of "excluded volume" effects is in driving steric repulsion? Do the authors imply depletion forces? Or the volume unavailable due to stochastic configurations of gaussian chains? How does the formalism apply to branched membrane glycoproteins is not immediately obvious.

(4) The authors showed that glycoprotein expression inversely correlated with viral infection and link viral entry inhibition to steric hindrance caused by the glycoprotein. Alternative explanations would be that the glycoprotein expression (a) reroutes endocytosed viral particles or (b) lowers cellular endocytic rates and via either mechanism reduce viral infection. The authors should provide evidence that these alternatives are not occurring in their system. They could for example experimentally test whether non-specific endocytosis is still operational at similar levels, measured with fluid-phase markers such as 10kDa dextrans.

(5) The authors approach their system with the goal of generalizing the cell membrane (the cumulative effect of all cell membrane molecules on viral entry), but what about the inverse? How does the nature of the molecule seeking entry affect the interface? For example, a lipid nanoparticle vs a virus with a short virus-cell distance vs a virus with a large virus-cell distance?

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

(1) The proposed mechanism indicates that glycosylation status does not produce an effect in the "trapping" of virus, but in later stages of the formation of the virus/membrane interface due to the high energetic costs of displacing highly glycosylated molecules at the vicinity of the virus/membrane interface. It is suggested to present a correlation between the levels of glycans in the Calu-3 cell monolayers and the number of viral particles bound to cell surface at different pulse times. Results may be quantified following the same method as shown in Figure 2 for the correlation between glycosylation levels and viral infection (in this case the resulting output could be number of viral particles bound as a function of glycan content).

(2) The use of the purified glycosylated and non-glycosylated ectodomains of MUC1 and CD-43 to establish a relationship between glycosylation and protein density into lipid bilayers on silica beads is an elegant approach. An assessment of the impact of glycosylation in the structural conformation of both proteins, for instance determining the Flory radius of the glycosylated and non-glycosylated ectodomains by the FRET-FLIM approach used in Figure 4 would serve to further support the hypothesis of the article.

(3) The MUC1 glycoprotein is reported to have a dramatic effect in reducing viral infection shown in Fig 1F. On the contrary, in a different experiment shown in Fig2D and Fig2H MUC1 has almost no effect in reducing viral infection. It is not clear how these two findings can be compatible.

(4) Why is there a shift in the use of the glycan marker? How does this affect the conclusions? For the infection correlation relating protein expression with glycan content the PNA-lectin was used together with flow cytometry. For imaging the infection and correlating with glycan content the SSA-lectin is used.

(5) The authors in several instances comment on the relevance and importance of the total glycan content. Nevertheless, these conclusions are often drawn when using only one glycan-binding lectin. In fact, the anti-correlation with viral infection is distinct for the various lectins (Fig 2D and Fig 2H). Would it make more sense to use a combination of lectins to get a full glycan spectrum?

(6) Fig 3A shows virus binding to HEK cells upon MUC1 expression. Please provide the surface expression of the MUC1 so that the data can be compared to Fig 1F. Nevertheless, it is not clear why the authors used MUC expression as a parameter to assess virus binding. Alternatively, more conclusive data supporting the hypothesis would be the absence of a correlation between total glycan content and virus binding capacity.

(7) While the use of the Flory model could provide a simplification for a (disordered) flexible structure such as MUC1, where the number of amino acids equals N in the Flory model, this generalisation will not hold for all the proteins. Because folding will dramatically change the effective polypeptide chain-length and reduce available positioning of the amino acids, something the authors clearly measured (Fig 4G), this generalisation is not correct. In fact, the generalisation does not seem to be required because the authors provide an estimation for the effective Flory radius using their FRET approach