IFIT1 is rapidly evolving and exhibits disparate antiviral activities across 11 mammalian orders

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

McDougal et al. aimed to characterize the antiviral activity of mammalian IFIT1 orthologs. They first performed three different evolutionary selection analyses within each major mammalian clade and identified some overlapping positive selection sites in IFIT1. They found that one site that is positively selected in primates is in the RNA-binding exit tunnel of IFIT1 and is tolerant of mutations to amino acids with similar biochemical properties. They then tested 9 diverse mammalian IFIT1 proteins against VEEV, VSV, PIV3, and SINV and found that each ortholog has distinct antiviral activities. Lastly, they compared human and chimpanzee IFIT1 and found that the determinant of their differential anti-VEEV activity may be partly attributed to their ability to bind Cap0 RNA.

Strengths:

The study is one of the first to test the antiviral activity of IFIT1 from diverse mammalian clades against VEEV, VSV, PIV3, and SINV. Cloning and expressing these 39 IFIT1 orthologs in addition to single and combinatorial mutants is not a trivial task. The positive connection between anti-VEEV activity and Cap0 RNA binding is interesting, suggesting that differences in RNA binding may explain differences in antiviral activity.

Weaknesses:

The evolutionary selection analyses yielded interesting results, but were not used to inform follow-up studies except for a positively selected site identified in primates. Since positive selection is one of the two major angles the authors proposed to investigate mammalian IFIT1 orthologs with, they should integrate the positive selection results with the rest of the paper more seamlessly, such as discussing the positive selection results and their implications, rather than just pointing out that positively selected sites were identified. The paper should elaborate on how the positive selection analyses PAML, FUBAR, and MEME complement one another to explain why the tests gave them different results. Interestingly, MEME which usually provides more sites did not identify site 193 in primates that was identified by both PAML and FUBAR. The authors should also provide the rationale for choosing to focus on the 3 sites identified in primates only. One of those sites, 193, was also found to be positively selected in bats, although the authors did not discuss or integrate that finding into the study. In Figure 1A, they also showed a dN/dS < 1 from PAML, which is confusing and would suggest negative selection instead of positive selection. Importantly, since the authors focused on the rapidly evolving site 193 in primates, they should test the IFIT1 orthologs against viruses that are known to infect primates to directly investigate the impact of the evolutionary arms race at this site on IFIT1 function.

Some of the data interpretation is not accurate. For example:

(1) Lines 232-234: "...western blot analysis revealed that the expression of IFIT1 orthologs was relatively uniform, except for the higher expression of orca IFIT1 and notably lower expression of pangolin IFIT1 (Figure 4B)." In fact, most of the orthologs are not expressed in a "relatively uniform" manner e.g. big brown bat vs. shrew are quite different.

(2) Line 245: "...mammalian IFIT1 species-specific differences in viral suppression are largely independent of expression differences." While it is true that there is no correlation between protein expression and antiviral activity in each species, the authors cannot definitively conclude that the species-specific differences are independent of expression differences. Since the orthologs are clearly not expressed in the same amounts, it is impossible to fully assess their true antiviral activity. At the very least, the authors should acknowledge that the protein expression can affect antiviral activity. They should also consider quantifying the IFIT1 protein bands and normalizing each to GAPDH for readers to better compare protein expression and antiviral activity. The same issue is in Line 267.

(3) Line 263: "SINV... was modestly suppressed by pangolin, sheep, and chinchilla IFIT1 (Figure 4E)..." The term "modestly suppressed" does not seem fitting if there is 60-70% infection in cells expressing pangolin and chinchilla IFIT1.

(4) The study can be significantly improved if the authors can find a thread to connect each piece of data together, so the readers can form a cohesive story about mammalian IFIT1.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

McDougal et al. describe the surprising finding that IFIT1 proteins from different mammalian species inhibit the replication of different viruses, indicating that the evolution of IFIT1 across mammals has resulted in host species-specific antiviral specificity. Before this work, research into the antiviral activity and specificity of IFIT1 had mostly focused on the human ortholog, which was described to inhibit viruses including vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) and Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) but not other viruses including Sindbis virus (SINV) and parainfluenza virus type 3 (PIV3). In the current work, the authors first perform evolutionary analyses on IFIT1 genes across a wide range of mammalian species and reveal that IFIT1 genes have evolved under positive selection in primates, bats, carnivores, and ungulates. Based on these data, they hypothesize that IFIT1 proteins from these diverse mammalian groups may show distinct antiviral specificities against a panel of viruses. By generating human cells that express IFIT1 proteins from different mammalian species, the authors show a wide range of antiviral activities of mammalian IFIT1s. Most strikingly, they find several IFIT1 proteins that have completely different antiviral specificities relative to human IFIT1, including IFIT1s that fail to inhibit VSV or VEEV, but strongly inhibit PIV3 or SINV. These results indicate that there is potential for IFIT1 to inhibit a much wider range of viruses than human IFIT1 inhibits. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSAs) suggest that some of these changes in antiviral specificity can be ascribed to changes in the direct binding of viral RNAs. Interestingly, they also find that chimpanzee IFIT1, which is >98% identical to human IFIT1, fails to inhibit any tested virus. Replacing three residues from chimpanzee IFIT1 with those from human IFIT1, one of which has evolved under positive selection in primates, restores activity to chimpanzee IFIT1. Together, these data reveal a vast diversity of IFIT1 antiviral specificity encoded by mammals, consistent with an IFIT1-virus evolutionary "arms race".

Overall, this is a very interesting and well-written manuscript that combines evolutionary and functional approaches to provide new insight into IFIT1 antiviral activity and species-specific antiviral immunity. The conclusion that IFIT1 genes in several mammalian lineages are evolving under positive selection is supported by the data, although there are some important analyses that need to be done to remove any confounding effects from gene recombination that has previously been described between IFIT1 and its paralog IFIT1B. The virology results, which convincingly show that IFIT1s from different species have distinct antiviral specificity, are the most surprising and exciting part of the paper. As such, this paper will be interesting for researchers studying mechanisms of innate antiviral immunity, as well as those interested in species-specific antiviral immunity. Moreover, it may prompt others to test a wide range of orthologs of antiviral factors beyond those from humans or mice, which could further the concept of host-specific innate antiviral specificity. Additional areas for improvement, which are mostly to clarify the presentation of data and conclusions, are described below.

Strengths:

(1) This paper is a very strong demonstration of the concept that orthologous innate immune proteins can evolve distinct antiviral specificities. Specifically, the authors show that IFIT1 proteins from different mammalian species are able to inhibit the replication of distinct groups of viruses, which is most clearly illustrated in Figure 4G. This is an unexpected finding, as the mechanism by which IFIT1 inhibits viral replication was assumed to be similar across orthologs. While the molecular basis for these differences remains unresolved, this is a clear indication that IFIT1 evolution functionally impacts host-specific antiviral immunity and that IFIT1 has the potential to inhibit a much wider range of viruses than previously described.

(2) By revealing these differences in antiviral specificity across IFIT1 orthologs, the authors highlight the importance of sampling antiviral proteins from different mammalian species to understand what functions are conserved and what functions are lineage- or species-specific. These results might therefore prompt similar investigations with other antiviral proteins, which could reveal a previously undiscovered diversity of specificities for other antiviral immunity proteins.

(3) The authors also surprisingly reveal that chimpanzee IFIT1 shows no antiviral activity against any tested virus despite only differing from human IFIT1 by eight amino acids. By mapping this loss of function to three residues on one helix of the protein, the authors shed new light on a region of the protein with no previously known function.

(4) Combined with evolutionary analyses that indicate that IFIT1 genes are evolving under positive selection in several mammalian groups, these functional data indicate that IFIT1 is engaged in an evolutionary "arms race" with viruses, which results in distinct antiviral specificities of IFIT1 proteins from different species.

Weaknesses:

(1) The evolutionary analyses the authors perform appear to indicate that IFIT1 genes in several mammalian groups have evolved under positive selection. However, IFIT1 has previously been shown to have undergone recurrent instances of recombination with the paralogous IFIT1B, which can confound positive selection analyses such as the ones the authors perform. The authors should analyze their alignments for evidence of recombination using a tool such as GARD (in the same HyPhy package along with MEME and FUBAR). Detection of recombination in these alignments would invalidate their positive selection inferences, in which case the authors need to either analyze individual non-recombining domains or limit the number of species to those that are not undergoing recombination. While it is likely that these analyses will still reveal a signature of positive selection, this step is necessary to ensure that the signatures of selection and sites of positive selection are accurate.

(2) The choice of IFIT1 homologs chosen for study needs to be described in more detail. Many mammalian species encode IFIT1 and IFIT1B proteins, which have been shown to have different antiviral specificity, and the evolutionary relationship between IFIT1 and IFIT1B paralogs is complicated by recombination. As such, the assertion that the proteins studied in this manuscript are IFIT1 orthologs requires additional support than the percent identity plot shown in Figure 3B.

(3) Some of the results and discussion text could be more focused on the model of evolution-driven changes in IFIT1 specificity. In particular, the chimpanzee data are interesting, but it would appear that this protein has lost all antiviral function, rather than changing its antiviral specificity like some other examples in this paper. As such, the connection between the functional mapping of individual residues with the positive selection analysis is somewhat confusing. It would be more clear to discuss this as a natural loss of function of this IFIT1, which has occurred elsewhere repeatedly across the mammalian tree.

(4) In other places in the manuscript, the strength of the differences in antiviral specificity could be highlighted to a greater degree. Specifically, the text describes a number of interesting examples of differences in inhibition of VSV versus VEEV from Figure 3C and 3D, but it is difficult for a reader to assess this as most of the dots are unlabeled and the primary data are not uploaded. A few potential suggestions would be to have a table of each ortholog with % infection by VSV and % infection by VEEV. Another possibility would be to plot these data as an XY scatter plot. This would highlight any species that deviate from the expected linear relationship between the inhibition of these two viruses, which would provide a larger panel of interesting IFIT1 antiviral specificities than the smaller number of species shown in Figure 4.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by McDougal et al, demonstrates species-specific activities of diverse IFIT1 orthologs and seeks to utilize evolutionary analysis to identify key amino acids under positive selection that contribute to the antiviral activity of this host factor. While the authors identify amino acid residues as important for the antiviral activity of some orthologs and propose a possible mechanism by which these residues may function, the significance or applicability of these findings to other orthologs is unclear. However, the subject matter is of interest to the field, and these findings could be significantly strengthened with additional data.

Strengths:

Assessment of multiple IFIT1 orthologs shows the wide variety of antiviral activity of IFIT1, and identification of residues outside of the known RNA binding pocket in the protein suggests additional novel mechanisms that may regulate IFIT1 activity.

Weaknesses:

Consideration of alternative hypotheses that might explain the variable and seemingly inconsistent antiviral activity of IFIT1 orthologs was not really considered. For example, studies show that IFIT1 activity may be regulated by interaction with other IFIT proteins but was not assessed in this study.

Given that there appears to be very little overlap observed in orthologs that inhibited the viruses tested, it's possible that other amino acids may be key drivers of antiviral activity in these other orthologs. Thus, it's difficult to conclude whether the findings that residues 362/4/6 are important for IFIT1 activity can be broadly applied to other orthologs, or whether these are unique to human and chimpanzee IFIT1. Similarly, while the hypothesis that these residues impact IFIT1 activity in an allosteric manner is an attractive one, there is no data to support this.

Author response:

We are grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Based on the Public Reviews, we will address the concerns raised by each reviewer through a combination of new analyses, clarifications, and expanded discussion as outlined below:

Reviewer #1:

(1) Integration of Positive Selection Results:

We will enhance the integration of positive selection analyses throughout the manuscript. Specifically, we will discuss how the positively selected sites in primates, including site 193, inform IFIT1 function. We will expand the discussion to explain how PAML, FUBAR, and MEME complement each other and why MEME did not detect site 193 in primates. Additionally, we will provide a rationale for focusing on the three sites identified in primates and address the overlap with bat orthologs.

(2) Expression Levels and Antiviral Activity:

We acknowledge the variability in IFIT1 ortholog expression levels. To address this, we will quantify and normalize protein expression to GAPDH across all orthologs, allowing for a more accurate comparison of antiviral activity. We will revise the text to clarify that species-specific diVerences in viral suppression may be influenced by expression levels.

(3) Clarification of Terminology and Data Interpretation:

We will refine our description of the antiviral eVects observed for SINV in Figure 4E. We will also revise statements related to protein expression in the relevant sections to improve accuracy.

(4) Cohesion of Data:

We will work to more tightly connect the evolutionary analysis with the functional virology data, framing the manuscript around how positive selection shapes IFIT1 function across species.

Reviewer #2:

(1) Recombination Analysis of IFIT1:

We will conduct a recombination analysis using GARD from the HyPhy package to ensure that the signatures of positive selection are not confounded by recombination between IFIT1 and IFIT1B.

(2) Clarification of IFIT1 Homologs Studied:

We will provide additional details on how IFIT1 orthologs were selected, including addressing the relationship between IFIT1 and IFIT1B. We will support this by presenting additional sequence comparisons to demonstrate the orthology of the proteins studied.

(3) Chimpanzee IFIT1 Loss of Function:

We will revise the discussion of chimpanzee IFIT1 to better reflect the data.

(4) Presentation of Antiviral Specificity Data:

We will include a supplementary table listing the percentage of infection normalized to control by VSV and VEEV for each ortholog to allow for clearer comparisons.

Additionally, we will provide an alternative visualization to better compare the data sets.

Reviewer #3:

(1) Alternative Hypotheses for IFIT1 Antiviral Activity such as IFIT1-IFIT interactions:

We will expand the discussion to consider alternative hypotheses, including the potential for IFIT1 activity to be regulated through interactions with other IFIT family members. Therefore, we will address how IFIT1-IFIT interactions may be broadly applicable to our findings with IFIT1 orthologs. In addition, we will clarify that we do not conclude that residues 362/4/6 are the sole drivers of antiviral specificity across the orthologs tested in this study.

(2) Generalization of Findings Across Orthologs:

We acknowledge that the functional importance of residues 362/4/6 may not be generalizable across all orthologs. We will discuss this limitation more explicitly in the manuscript, while also expanding on how these findings apply specifically to primate IFIT1 orthologs.

We believe that these revisions will address the key concerns raised by the reviewers and strengthen the manuscript. We look forward to submitting the revised version for further consideration.