The Chromatin Remodeling Factor SMARCB1 Forms a Complex with Human Cytomegalovirus Proteins UL114 and UL44

Background: Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) uracil DNA glycosylase, UL114, is required for efficient viral DNA replication. Presumably, UL114 functions as a structural partner to other factors of the DNA-replication machinery and not as a DNA repair protein. UL114 binds UL44 (HCMV processivity factor) and UL54 (HCMV-DNA-polymerase). In the present study we have searched for cellular partners of UL114. Methodology/Principal Findings: In a yeast two-hybrid screen SMARCB1, a factor of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, was found to be an interacting partner of UL114. This interaction was confirmed in vitro by coimmunoprecipitation and pull-down. Immunofluorescence microscopy revealed that SMARCB1 along with BRG-1, BAF170 and BAF155, which are the core SWI/SNF components required for efficient chromatin remodeling, were present in virus replication foci 24–48 hours post infection (hpi). Furthermore a direct interaction was also demonstrated for SMARCB1 and UL44. Conclusions/Significance: The core SWI/SNF factors required for efficient chromatin remodeling are present in the HCMV replication foci throughout infection. The proteins UL44 and UL114 interact with SMARCB1 and may participate in the recruitment of the SWI/SNF complex to the chromatinized virus DNA. Thus, the presence of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex in replication foci and its association with UL114 and with UL44 might imply its involvement i

Divergent Effects of Human Cytomegalovirus and Herpes Simplex Virus-1 on Cellular Metabolism

Viruses rely on the metabolic network of the host cell to provide energy and macromolecular precursors to fuel viral replication. Here we used mass spectrometry to examine the impact of two related herpesviruses, human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) and herpes simplex virus type-1 (HSV-1), on the metabolism of fibroblast and epithelial host cells. Each virus triggered strong metabolic changes that were conserved across different host cell types. The metabolic effects of the two viruses were, however, largely distinct. HCMV but not HSV-1 increased glycolytic flux. HCMV profoundly increased TCA compound levels and flow of two carbon units required for TCA cycle turning and fatty acid synthesis. HSV-1 increased anapleurotic influx to the TCA cycle through pyruvate carboxylase, feeding pyrimidine biosynthesis. Thus, these two related herpesviruses drive diverse host cells to execute distinct, virus-specific metabolic programs. Current drugs target nucleotide metabolism for treatment of both viruses. Although our results confirm that this is a robust target for HSV-1, therapeutic interventions at other points in metabolism might prove more effective for treatment of HCMV