IFN-α and lipopolysaccharide upregulate APOBEC3 mRNA through different signaling pathways
ABSTRACT APOBEC3 (A3) proteins are virus-restriction factors that provide intrinsic immunity against infections by viruses like HIV-1 and mouse mammary tumor virus. A3 proteins are inducible by inflammatory stimuli, such as LPS and IFN-α, via mechanisms that are not fully defined. Using genetic and pharmacological studies on C57BL/6 mice and cells, we show that IFN-α and LPS induce A3 via different pathways, independently of each other. IFN-α positively regulates mouse APOBEC3 (mA3) mRNA expression through IFN-αR/PKC/STAT1 and negatively regulates mA3 mRNA expression via IFN-αR/MAPKs-signaling pathways. Interestingly, LPS shows some variation in its regulatory behavior. Although LPS-mediated positive regulation of mA3 mRNA occurs through TLR4/TRIF/IRF3/PKC, it negatively modulates mA3 mRNA via TLR4/MyD88/MAPK-signaling pathways. Additional studies on human peripheral blood mononuclear cells reveal that PKC differentially regulates IFN-α and LPS induction of human A3A, A3F, and A3G mRNA expression. In summary, we identified important signaling targets downstream of IFN-αR and TLR4 that mediate A3 mRNA induction by both LPS and IFN-α. Our results provide new insights into the signaling targets that could be manipulated to enhance the intracellular store of A3 and potentially enhance A3 antiviral function in the host.
- SourceAvailable from: Mario L Santiago[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Therapeutic administration of IFN-α in clinical trials significantly reduced HIV-1 plasma viral load and human T-lymphotropic virus type I proviral load in infected patients. The mechanism may involve the concerted action of multiple antiretroviral effectors collectively known as "restriction factors," which could vary in relative importance according to the magnitude of transcriptional induction. Meanwhile, direct genetic approaches to identify the relevant IFN-α restriction factors will not be feasible in humans in vivo. Meanwhile, mice encode an analogous set of restriction factor genes and could be used to obtain insights on how IFN-α could inhibit retroviruses in vivo. As expected, IFN-α treatment of mice significantly upregulated the transcription of multiple restriction factors including Tetherin/BST2, SAMHD1, Viperin, ISG15, OAS1, and IFITM3. However, a dominant antiretroviral factor, Apobec3, was only minimally induced. To determine whether Apobec3 was necessary for direct IFN-α antiretroviral action in vivo, wild-type and Apobec3-deficient mice were infected with Friend retrovirus, then treated with IFN-α. Treatment of infected wild-type mice with IFN-α significantly reduced acute plasma viral load 28-fold, splenic proviral load 5-fold, bone marrow proviral load 14-fold, and infected bone marrow cells 7-fold, but no inhibition was observed in Apobec3-deficient mice. These findings reveal that IFN-α inhibits acute Friend retrovirus infection primarily through the antiviral effector Apobec3 in vivo, demonstrate that transcriptional induction levels did not predict the mechanism of IFN-α-mediated control, and highlight the potential of the human APOBEC3 proteins as therapeutic targets against pathogenic retrovirus infections.The Journal of Immunology 01/2013; 190(4). DOI:10.4049/jimmunol.1202920 · 5.36 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) is a re-emerging alphavirus transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. Infection with CHIKV elicits a type I interferon response that facilities virus clearance, probably through the action of down-stream effectors such as antiviral IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs). Bone marrow stromal antigen 2 (BST-2) is an ISG shown to restrict HIV-1 replication by preventing the infection of bystander cells by tethering progeny virions on the surface of infected cells. Here we show that enrichment of cell surface BST-2 results in retention of CHIKV virus like particles (VLPs) on the cell membrane. BST-2 was found to co-localize with CHIKV structural protein E1 in the context of VLPs without any noticeable effect on BST-2 level. However, CHIKV nonstructural protein 1 (nsP1) overcomes BST-2-mediated VLPs tethering by down-regulating BST-2 expression. We conclude that BST-2 tethers CHIKV VLPs on the host cell plasma membrane and identify CHIKV nsP1 as a novel BST-2 antagonist.Virology 03/2013; 438(1):37-49. DOI:10.1016/j.virol.2013.01.010 · 3.28 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), the major causative agent of bacterial sepsis, has been used by many laboratories in genome-wide expression profiling of the LPS response. However, these studies have predominantly used in vitro cultured macrophages (Macs), which may not accurately reflect the LPS response of these innate immune cells in vivo. To overcome this limitation and to identify inflammatory genes in vivo, we have profiled genome-wide expression patterns in non-lymphoid, splenic myeloid cells extracted directly from LPS-treated mice. Genes encoding factors known to be involved in mediating or regulating inflammatory processes, such as cytokines and chemokines, as well as many genes whose immunological functions are not well known, were strongly induced by LPS after 3 h or 8 h of treatment. Most of the highly LPSresponsive genes that we randomly selected from the microarray data were independently confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR, implying that our microarray data are quite reliable. When our in vivo data were compared to previously reported microarray data for in vitro LPS-treated Macs, a significant proportion (∼20%) of the in vivo LPS-responsive genes defined in this study were specific to cells exposed to LPS in vivo, but a larger proportion of them (∼60%) were influenced by LPS in both in vitro and in vivo settings. This result indicates that our in vivo LPS-responsive gene set includes not only previously identified in vitro LPS-responsive genes but also novel LPS-responsive genes. Both types of genes would be a valuable resource in the future for understanding inflammatory responses in vivo.Moleculer Cells 05/2013; 35(6). DOI:10.1007/s10059-013-2349-y · 2.24 Impact Factor