Single amino acid change in gp41 region of HIV-1 alters bystander apoptosis and CD4 decline in humanized mice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The mechanism by which HIV infection leads to a selective depletion of CD4 cells leading to immunodeficiency remains highly debated. Whether the loss of CD4 cells is a direct consequence of virus infection or bystander apoptosis of uninfected cells is also uncertain.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We have addressed this issue in the humanized mouse model of HIV infection using a HIV variant with a point mutation in the gp41 region of the Env glycoprotein that alters its fusogenic activity. We demonstrate here that a single amino acid change (V38E) altering the cell-to-cell fusion activity of the Env minimizes CD4 loss in humanized mice without altering viral replication. This differential pathogenesis was associated with a lack of bystander apoptosis induction by V38E virus even in the presence of similar levels of infected cells. Interestingly, immune activation was observed with both WT and V38E infection suggesting that the two phenomena are likely not interdependent in the mouse model.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We conclude that Env fusion activity is one of the determinants of HIV pathogenesis and it may be possible to attenuate HIV by targeting gp41.</p

Coreceptor Usage by HIV-1 and HIV-2 Primary Isolates: The Relevance of CCR8 Chemokine Receptor as an Alternative Coreceptor

The human immunodeficiency virus replication cycle begins by sequential interactions between viral envelope glycoproteins with CD4 molecule and a member of the seven-transmembrane, G-protein-coupled, receptors' family (coreceptor). In this report we focused on the contribution of CCR8 as alternative coreceptor for HIV-1 and HIV-2 isolates. We found that this coreceptor was efficiently used not only by HIV-2 but particularly by HIV-1 isolates. We demonstrate that CXCR4 usage, either alone or together with CCR5 and/or CCR8, was more frequently observed in HIV-1 than in HIV-2 isolates. Directly related to this is the finding that the non-usage of CXCR4 is significantly more common in HIV-2 isolates; both features could be associated with the slower disease progression generally observed in HIV-2 infected patients. The ability of some viral isolates to use alternative coreceptors besides CCR5 and CXCR4 could further impact on the efficacy of entry inhibitor therapy and possibly also in HIV pathogenesis

The SDF-1α/CXCR4 Axis is Required for Proliferation and Maturation of Human Fetal Pancreatic Endocrine Progenitor Cells

The chemokine receptor CXCR4 and ligand SDF-1α are expressed in fetal and adult mouse islets. Neutralization of CXCR4 has previously been shown to diminish ductal cell proliferation and increase apoptosis in the IFNγ transgenic mouse model in which the adult mouse pancreas displays islet regeneration. Here, we demonstrate that CXCR4 and SDF-1α are expressed in the human fetal pancreas and that during early gestation, CXCR4 colocalizes with neurogenin 3 (ngn3), a key transcription factor for endocrine specification in the pancreas. Treatment of islet like clusters (ICCs) derived from human fetal pancreas with SDF-1α resulted in increased proliferation of epithelial cells in ICCs without a concomitant increase in total insulin expression. Exposure of ICCs in vitro to AMD3100, a pharmacological inhibitor of CXCR4, did not alter expression of endocrine hormones insulin and glucagon, or the pancreatic endocrine transcription factors PDX1, Nkx6.1, Ngn3 and PAX4. However, a strong inhibition of β cell genesis was observed when in vitro AMD3100 treatment of ICCs was followed by two weeks of in vivo treatment with AMD3100 after ICC transplantation into mice. Analysis of the grafts for human C-peptide found that inhibition of CXCR4 activity profoundly inhibits islet development. Subsequently, a model pancreatic epithelial cell system (CFPAC-1) was employed to study the signals that regulate proliferation and apoptosis by the SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis. From a selected panel of inhibitors tested, both the PI 3-kinase and MAPK pathways were identified as critical regulators of CFPAC-1 proliferation. SDF-1α stimulated Akt phosphorylation, but failed to increase phosphorylation of Erk above the high basal levels observed. Taken together, these results indicate that SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis plays a critical regulatory role in the genesis of human islets

IRGM Is a Common Target of RNA Viruses that Subvert the Autophagy Network

Autophagy is a conserved degradative pathway used as a host defense mechanism against intracellular pathogens. However, several viruses can evade or subvert autophagy to insure their own replication. Nevertheless, the molecular details of viral interaction with autophagy remain largely unknown. We have determined the ability of 83 proteins of several families of RNA viruses (Paramyxoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Retroviridae and Togaviridae), to interact with 44 human autophagy-associated proteins using yeast two-hybrid and bioinformatic analysis. We found that the autophagy network is highly targeted by RNA viruses. Although central to autophagy, targeted proteins have also a high number of connections with proteins of other cellular functions. Interestingly, immunity-associated GTPase family M (IRGM), the most targeted protein, was found to interact with the autophagy-associated proteins ATG5, ATG10, MAP1CL3C and SH3GLB1. Strikingly, reduction of IRGM expression using small interfering RNA impairs both Measles virus (MeV), Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1)-induced autophagy and viral particle production. Moreover we found that the expression of IRGM-interacting MeV-C, HCV-NS3 or HIV-NEF proteins per se is sufficient to induce autophagy, through an IRGM dependent pathway. Our work reveals an unexpected role of IRGM in virus-induced autophagy and suggests that several different families of RNA viruses may use common strategies to manipulate autophagy to improve viral infectivity

Macrophage signaling in HIV-1 infection

The human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) is a member of the lentivirus genus. The virus does not rely exclusively on the host cell machinery, but also on viral proteins that act as molecular switches during the viral life cycle which play significant functions in viral pathogenesis, notably by modulating cell signaling. The role of HIV-1 proteins (Nef, Tat, Vpr, and gp120) in modulating macrophage signaling has been recently unveiled. Accessory, regulatory, and structural HIV-1 proteins interact with signaling pathways in infected macrophages. In addition, exogenous Nef, Tat, Vpr, and gp120 proteins have been detected in the serum of HIV-1 infected patients. Possibly, these proteins are released by infected/apoptotic cells. Exogenous accessory regulatory HIV-1 proteins are able to enter macrophages and modulate cellular machineries including those that affect viral transcription. Furthermore HIV-1 proteins, e.g., gp120, may exert their effects by interacting with cell surface membrane receptors, especially chemokine co-receptors. By activating the signaling pathways such as NF-kappaB, MAP kinase (MAPK) and JAK/STAT, HIV-1 proteins promote viral replication by stimulating transcription from the long terminal repeat (LTR) in infected macrophages; they are also involved in macrophage-mediated bystander T cell apoptosis. The role of HIV-1 proteins in the modulation of macrophage signaling will be discussed in regard to the formation of viral reservoirs and macrophage-mediated T cell apoptosis during HIV-1 infection

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field