Summary
RNA recombination in positive-strand RNA viruses is a molecular-genetic course of, which allows the best evolution of the genome and could also be important to stabilizing the genome from the deleterious penalties of amassed mutations. Enteroviruses characterize a helpful system to elucidate the main points of this course of. On the biochemical stage, it’s recognized that RNA recombination is catalyzed by the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase utilizing a template-switching mechanism. For this mechanism to operate in cells, the recombining genomes should be positioned in the identical subcellular compartment. How a viral genome is trafficked to the positioning of genome replication and recombination, which is membrane related and remoted from the cytoplasm, is just not recognized. We hypothesized that genome translation was important for colocalization of genomes for recombination. We present that full inactivation of inside ribosome entry web site (IRES)-mediated translation of a donor enteroviral genome enhanced recombination as an alternative of impairing it. Recombination didn’t happen by a nonreplicative mechanism. Relatively, adequate translation of the nonstructural area of the genome occurred to help subsequent steps required for recombination. The noncanonical translation initiation elements, eIF2A and eIF2D, had been required for IRES-independent translation. Our outcomes help an eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism below situations by which the eIF2-dependent mechanism is inactive. Detection of an IRES-independent mechanism for translation of the enterovirus genome gives an evidence for a wide range of debated observations, together with nonreplicative recombination and persistence of enteroviral RNA missing an IRES. The existence of an eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism in enteroviruses predicts the existence of comparable mechanisms in different viruses.
Quotation: Kim H, Aponte-Diaz D, Sotoudegan MS, Shengjuler D, Arnold JJ, Cameron CE (2023) The enterovirus genome may be translated in an IRES-independent method that requires the initiation elements eIF2A/eIF2D. PLoS Biol 21(1):
e3001693.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001693
Tutorial Editor: Andrew Mehle, College of Wisconsin-Madison, UNITED STATES
Obtained: Could 21, 2022; Accepted: January 4, 2023; Printed: January 23, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Kim et al. That is an open entry article distributed below the phrases of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which allows unrestricted use, distribution, and copy in any medium, supplied the unique creator and supply are credited.
Knowledge Availability: All related knowledge are inside the paper and its Supporting Info information.
Funding: This examine was supported by a grant (AI045818) from NIAID, NIH to C.E.C. and J.J.A. The funders had no position in examine design, knowledge assortment and evaluation, determination to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing pursuits: The authors have declared that no competing pursuits exist.
Abbreviations:
GEO,
Gene Expression Omnibus; GuHCl,
guanidine hydrochloride; IFIT,
interferon-inducible protein with tetratricopeptide repeat; IRES,
inside ribosome entry web site; KO,
knockout; ORF,
open studying body; PKR,
RNA-activated protein kinase; PI4P,
phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate; PRR,
sample recognition receptor; PV,
poliovirus; RD,
rhabdomyosarcoma; RdRp,
RNA-dependent RNA polymerase; RIG-I,
retinoic acid-inducible gene product; RO,
replication organelle; SARS-CoV-2,
Extreme Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2; S51,
serine-51; T446,
threonine-446; UTR,
untranslated area; WT,
wild-type
Introduction
RNA recombination is a crucial driver of evolution in positive-strand RNA viruses [1–3]. Myriad examples exist of the creation of pathogenic viral strains by RNA recombination [4–7]. Certainly, it has been recommended that RNA recombination contributed to the evolution of Extreme Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is contributing to creation of the ever-changing repertoire of variants circulating globally [8]. A second epidemiological problem produced by RNA recombination is the creation of virulent, vaccine-derived polioviruses (PVs) by recombination of reside, attenuated vaccine strains with circulating, wild species-C enteroviruses [9]. Despite the prevalence and significance of RNA recombination in virus evolution, an understanding of the biochemistry and cell biology of this course of stays woefully incomplete.
Research of RNA recombination within the species-C enterovirus, PV, have established the molecular and conceptual framework guiding research of RNA recombination in different positive-strand RNA viruses [10,11]. Mixing of genetically encoded phenotypes between PV variants happens quickly upon coinfection [12]. RNA recombination happens by a template-switching mechanism by which the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) initiates RNA synthesis first on one genome (known as the donor template) then switches to a second genome (known as the acceptor template) throughout elongation [10,13]. Transfection of two genomes, every of which individually incapable of manufacturing infectious virus, makes use of RNA recombination to reconstitute an infectious genome [13]. Methods similar to these have proven a direct correlation between genetic errors launched into the genome and the frequency of recombination, implicating RdRp infidelity as a set off of recombination [14–16].
The RdRp is adequate for template switching in vitro [17]. Mutations mapping to RdRp-coding sequence can impair RNA recombination [18,19]. These recombination-defective variants replicate nicely in cell tradition below regular situations [18,19] however are unable to cope with excessive mutational hundreds [18] or replicate nicely in animals [18,19]. Biophysical experiments revealed the existence of a stalled RdRp with its 3′-end of nascent RNA in a single-stranded type [20]. This state was inextricably linked to RNA recombination utilizing a recombination-defective enzyme, thus figuring out a putative recombination intermediate [19]. Formation of a single-stranded 3′-end whereas replicating the donor genome permits this finish to hybridize to the acceptor genome [20]. Nucleotide misincorporation and incorporation of sure nucleotide analogs induces formation of the recombination intermediate, interfering with virus multiplication [19].
All steps of the enterovirus lifecycle, together with genome replication, happen in affiliation with virus-induced membranes, that are additionally regarded as sequestered from the cytoplasm and mechanisms therein able to sensing viral RNA [21–25]. This circumstance requires genomes present process recombination to colocalize to the identical web site of genome replication, the “genome-replication organelle” (RO). How enteroviral genomes are focused to an RO is just not recognized. The preliminary aim of this examine was to find mechanisms governing genome trafficking.
We hypothesized that polyprotein determinants current on the translating ribosome have the capability to focus on the translating polysome to the positioning of genome replication (Fig 1A). As soon as current within the RO, translation would finally terminate as a result of elements required for translation initiation can be current within the cytoplasm (Fig 1B). These genomes would bear replication and colocalization of distinct genomes would facilitate template switching and phenotypic mixing (Fig 1B). If this speculation is right, then interfering with translation of one of many genomes (Fig 1C) would preclude trafficking to the genome-replication organelle and recombination (Fig 1D).
Fig 1. Speculation: Polyprotein determinants introduced throughout translation direct the enteroviral genome to the positioning of replication.
For recombination to happen between two genetically distinct PV genomes, these genomes should be in the identical replication organelle. (A, B) Viral RNAs, proven in blue and crimson, are focused to the replication organelle whereas being translated and facilitate RNA recombination between the 2 colocalized genomes. Particular viral polyprotein determinants, indicated by a black arrow, mediate this trafficking whereas nonetheless part of the polyprotein and in affiliation with the ribosome. (C, D) In a case the place one genome with impaired polyprotein synthesis, proven in crimson, can also be contaminated by a second genome, proven in blue, the genome with impaired polyprotein synthesis can’t be trafficked to the replication organelle, so recombination between the 2 genomes can’t happen. This determine was created by Efraín E. Rivera-Serrano utilizing BioRender. PV, poliovirus; RO, replication organelle.
The one recognized mechanism for translation of the enteroviral genome makes use of the canonical inside ribosome entry web site (IRES) current within the 5′-untranslated area (UTR) of the genome [26–30]. After we use the time period “IRES” within the absence of a modifier, we’re referring to this canonical ingredient. Due to this fact, genetic inactivation of the IRES ought to impair recombination. This didn’t happen. Recombination was stimulated considerably. Some have recommended the existence of a replication-independent mechanism for recombination [31]. Nevertheless, the corresponding examine by no means investigated the potential of an IRES-independent mechanism for translation. Herein, we offer proof for the existence of a translation–initiation mechanism that requires eIF2A and eIF2D, elements able to initiating from non-AUG codons [32]. Our knowledge are in line with initiation occurring on the 3′-end of the 2A protease-coding sequence, downstream of the structural gene (P1) positioned on the 5′-end of the IRES-dependent open studying body (ORF). Whereas population-level research solely revealed a job for eIF2A and eIF2D when in vitro transcribed RNA was transfected into cells to provoke an infection and/or recombination, research on the single-cell stage recommended a job for these elements throughout regular, virus-initiated an infection.
It’s changing into more and more clear that mechanisms exist for cells to outlive below situations of stress that result in phosphorylation of eukaryotic translation initiation issue 2α, eIF2α, and shutdown of regular, cap-dependent translation [33]. Certainly one of these mechanisms is the usage of non-AUG codons for translation initiation utilizing eIF2A and/or eIF2D [34]. Among the many earliest responses to viral an infection is shutdown of cap-dependent translation by eIF2α kinases [35]. Our examine suggests the very provocative risk that enteroviruses can also exploit the eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism to outlive below situations by which the cell is actively making an attempt to thwart viral an infection by inhibiting regular translation. Earlier makes an attempt to disclose a job for eIF2A and/or eIF2D in multiplication of different viruses might have been masked on the inhabitants stage [36,37]. Research on the single-cell stage could also be essential to uncover the significance of eIF2A and/or eIF2D within the viral lifecycle.
Outcomes
Proof for IRES-independent translation of the poliovirus genome
We now have used the cell-based assay for PV recombination developed by the Evans laboratory [13]. This assay employs two viral RNA genomes ready in vitro by T7 transcription of the suitable cDNAs [13]. The donor genome is a subgenomic replicon missing capsid-coding sequence (donor in Fig 2A). The acceptor genome is an entire PV genome; nonetheless, this genome is replication incompetent due to inactivating mutations inside a cis-acting replication ingredient (acceptor in Fig 2A). Cotransfection of the donor and acceptor genomes into mammalian cells results in the formation of recombinants able to producing infectious virus (recombinant in Fig 2A). Ample virus is produced by this method to allow virus titer for use as a surrogate for recombination effectivity [13].
Fig 2. RNA virus recombinants are recovered after deletion of the PV IRES in a donor subgenomic replicon RNA.
(A) Schematic of the cell-based assay for PV recombination [13,14,75]. Two RNAs are used within the assay, a replication-competent PV subgenomic RNA (Donor, crimson) by which capsid-coding sequence is changed with luciferase coding-sequence and a replication-incompetent full-length PV genomic RNA (Acceptor, blue) with a faulty cis-acting replication ingredient (indicated by crimson *). Cotransfection of those RNAs in a L929 mouse fibroblast cell line produces infectious virus if recombination happens leading to a replication-competent, full-length PV genomic RNA. Infectious virus produced by recombination may be quantified by plaque assay utilizing HeLa cells. (B) Comparability of infectious virus produced between donor RNAs with both an intact IRES (①) or when your complete IRES and majority of luciferase coding sequence (nt 41–2,393, ΔIRES) was deleted (②) [13]. (C) Recombination between the donor with the deleted IRES (ΔIRES) and acceptor RNA (② x ③) produces 5-fold extra recombinant virus in comparison with the corresponding management (① x ③). Outcomes present titer of recombinant virus (pfu/mL ± SEM; n = 3). Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (* signifies p < 0.05). Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). IRES, inside ribosome entry web site; PV, poliovirus.
We now have developed a standardized strategy to depict and focus on the recombination experiments carried out herein. Donor genomes shall be drawn in crimson and numbered ①, ②, and so forth (Fig 2B). Acceptor genomes shall be drawn in blue, and numbering will decide up from the place the donor numbering ended (e.g., ③ in Fig 2B). Transfected donor–acceptor pairs shall be labeled utilizing the indicated genome numbering (e.g., ① x ③ in Fig 2C).
If translation of each donor and acceptor genomes is required for localization inside the identical genome-replication organelle, then inactivation of translation on one of many genomes ought to impair recombination. To inactivate translation, we deleted the IRES within the donor template (② in Fig 2B) and paired it with the usual acceptor genome (③ in Fig 2B). In distinction to expectations, deletion of the IRES enhanced recombination by 5-fold over the management (evaluate ② x ③ to ① x ③ in Fig 2C).
Dogma in picornavirology has been that for a genome to be replicated and, due to this fact, to function a template for recombination, translation of that genome should happen [38,39]. Nevertheless, it was attainable that the polyprotein produced by the acceptor genome would possibly complement the deficit of the donor genome. If that is so, then eliminating manufacturing of the RdRp (3D) by the acceptor genome ought to inhibit recombination. To check this risk, we constructed two acceptor genomes. We launched two cease codons instantly following the 3B-coding sequence, which ought to remove expression of the 3C- and 3D-coding sequence (③ in Fig 3A). As a result of it was unclear if the 2 cease codons would terminate translation with 100% effectivity, we constructed an acceptor genome that not solely contained the 2 cease codons after 3B but in addition genetically inactivated the RdRp by mutating the sequence to change its signature GDD motif to GAA (④ in Fig 3A). Pairing the ΔIRES donor genome with both of the acceptor genomes nonetheless yielded recombinants (① x ③ and ① x ④ in Fig 3B).
Fig 3. RNA virus recombinants are in line with the donor RNA because the supply of the PV RdRp, 3Dpol, and never the acceptor RNA.
(A) A mutation (GDD to GAA) producing an inactive PV RdRp, proven by a black diamond (◊), was launched into both the donor or acceptor RNAs (② and ④). Insertion of two STOP codons (UAGUAA) after the 3B-coding sequence (3B STOP), indicated by a crimson rectangle, was launched into the acceptor RNAs (③ and ④). (B) The indicated donor and acceptor RNAs had been cotransfected into L929 cells. Yields of recombinant virus following transfection are proven (pfu/mL ± SEM; n = 3).—signifies that plaques weren’t detected (restrict of detection: 2 pfu/mL). Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (n.s. signifies not vital). Viral recombinants had been recovered solely when the donor had an intact 3D gene encoding an lively RdRp (① x ③, ① x ④); viral recombinants weren’t recovered when the donor RNA encoded an inactive RdRp (② x ③, ② x ④). There was no influence on viral recombinants produced when the acceptor RNA had cease codons upstream of the 3D gene encoding an lively or inactive RdRp (① x ③, ① x ④). Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). PV, poliovirus; RdRp, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
At this stage, two prospects remained to elucidate the commentary of recombination utilizing the ΔIRES donor genome. The primary risk was recombination by a nonreplicative, RdRp-independent mechanism, and such a mechanism has been proposed to exist for enteroviruses [31]. Nevertheless, the second risk is the existence of an IRES-independent mechanism for translation of the PV genome. If this latter risk had been right, then it could clarify the observations that led to the existence of nonreplicative recombination. By definition, a nonreplicative mechanism shouldn’t require the RdRp. So, we constructed a ΔIRES donor genome that additionally harbored a genetically inactive RdRp (② in Fig 3A). An inactive RdRp can be anticipated to solely intervene with replicative recombination. Pairing the ΔIRES, inactive-RdRp donor genome with both of the acceptor genomes designed to preclude expression of the RdRp abrogated recombination (② x ③ and ② x ④ in Fig 3B).
It now appeared that the donor genome was being translated. Nevertheless, deleting the IRES creates a 5′-end primarily missing a UTR. On this case, translation initiation may be an irrelevant mechanism. To probe this risk, we inhibited IRES-dependent translation by deleting 10 nucleotides from stem-loop II-3 (ΔSLII-3) within the donor genomes with or with out an lively RdRp; these constructs contained your complete luciferase-coding sequence (Fig 4A) [40]. We paired every of the ΔSLII-3 donor genomes with every of the acceptor genomes designed to preclude expression of the RdRp. The outcomes with ΔSLII-3 donor genomes (Fig 4B) had been equivalent to these for the comparable ΔIRES donor genomes (Fig 3B), in line with the concept an IRES-independent mechanism of translation exists for PV.
Fig 4. A ten-nt deletion within the IRES that’s recognized to stop translation recapitulates phenotypes noticed with a deleted IRES.
(A) The donor RNA was engineered to include a 10-nucleotide deletion (nt 185–189, nt 198–202) recognized to disrupt the IRES (known as ΔSLII-3) [40] with an lively or an inactive RdRp. (B) Comparability of infectious virus produced between the indicated donor and acceptor RNAs with the precise modifications. Outcomes present titer of recombinant virus (pfu/mL ± SEM; n = 3).—signifies that plaques weren’t detected (restrict of detection: 2 pfu/mL). Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (n.s. signifies not vital). Viral recombinants had been recovered utilizing a donor RNA containing the ΔSLII-3 and an lively RdRp with the indicated acceptor RNAs (① x ③, ① x ④); viral recombinants weren’t recovered when the donor RNA contained ΔSLII-3 and encoded an inactive RdRp (② x ③). Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). IRES, inside ribosome entry web site; RdRp, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
Proof for IRES-independent translation of the enterovirus A71 genome
It was essential to judge this phenomenon of IRES-independent translation utilizing one other enterovirus, as a result of conservation throughout the genus can be anticipated for a operate important to virus viability or health. We had already tailored EV-A71 for analysis of recombination utilizing the cell-based system [15]. We constructed an EV-A71 ΔIRES donor genome such that luciferase-coding sequence remained intact (Fig 5A). Luciferase exercise detected from the subgenomic RNA with a useful IRES within the presence of three mM guanidine hydrochloride (GuHCl), an inhibitor of enterovirus genome replication, confirmed accumulation of luciferase exercise in cells (Fig 5A). Nevertheless, deletion of the IRES abolished accumulation of luciferase exercise (Fig 5A). Due to this fact, IRES-independent translation both produces luciferase at a stage under the restrict of detection or initiates downstream of luciferase-coding sequence.
Fig 5. Proof for IRES-independent translation of the enterovirus A71 genome.
(A) Subgenomic replicon luciferase exercise utilizing an EV-A71 C2 subgenomic replicon with your complete IRES (nt 38–767) deleted (ΔIRES) [15]. As a management, the WT subgenomic replicon RNA was transfected within the presence of GuHCl, a replication inhibitor. Luciferase exercise is reported in RLUs as a operate of time posttransfection. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (B, C) Comparability of infectious virus generated between the indicated donor and acceptor RNAs with the precise modifications. The indicated set of donor and acceptor RNAs was cotransfected into RD cells. Outcomes present titer of recombinant virus (pfu/mL ± SEM; n = 3).—signifies that plaques weren’t detected (restrict of detection: 2 pfu/mL). Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (n.s. signifies not vital). Viral recombinants had been recovered solely when the donor had an intact 3D gene encoding an lively RdRp (① x ③, ① x ④); viral recombinants weren’t recovered when the donor RNA encoded an inactive RdRp (② x ③). Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). GuHCl, guanidine hydrochloride; IRES, inside ribosome entry web site; RD, rhabdomyosarcoma; RdRp, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase; RLU, relative mild unit; WT, wild sort.
We paired the EV-A71 ΔIRES donor genomes encoding an lively or inactive RdRp with acceptor genomes incapable of expressing RdRp-coding sequence (Fig 5B). As noticed for PV (Fig 3B), an lively RdRp was required within the donor genome to watch recombination (Fig 5C). These knowledge are in line with recombination occurring by a replicative, RdRp-dependent mechanism, with the RdRp being produced by an IRES-independent mechanism.
IRES-independent translation might provoke inside the nonstructural protein-coding sequence
Research above with EV-A71 donor genomes confirmed completely no detectable luciferase exercise (Fig 5A). We carried out comparable experiments for the PV genomes containing ΔIRES and deleted for luciferase-coding sequence (Fig 6A) or ΔSLII-3 containing the entire luciferase-coding sequence (Fig 6B). No detectable luciferase exercise was noticed for both assemble with an inactive IRES (Fig 6A and 6B). Certainly, the exercise within the absence of a useful IRES was decrease than that detected for the corresponding wild-type (WT) donor genomes within the presence of the genome-replication inhibitor, GuHCl (Fig 6A and 6B). Surprisingly, the sign was the identical even when luciferase-coding sequence was current (evaluate ΔSLII-3 in Fig 6B to ΔIRES in Fig 6A). To find out the restrict of detection of the luciferase exercise assay, we evaluated the exercise of a serial dilution of purified luciferase (Fig 6C). The restrict of detection was 1.26 pg of luciferase, equivalent to 107 molecules of luciferase or 1,200 molecules of luciferase per cell (Fig 6C). We had been unable to realize a detectable sign by concentrating the pattern from ΔSLII-3. Taken collectively, we conclude that initiation of translation seemingly happens downstream of luciferase-coding sequence in nonstructural protein-coding sequence.
Fig 6. IRES-independent translation might provoke downstream of luciferase-coding sequence inside the nonstructural protein-coding sequence.
(A, B) Subgenomic replicon luciferase assay evaluating the depicted RNAs: WT vs. ΔIRES (panel A) and WT vs. ΔSLII-3 RNAs (panel B). As a management, the WT RNA was transfected within the presence of GuHCl. Luciferase exercise is reported in RLUs as a operate of time posttransfection. Luciferase models for ΔIRES and ΔSLII-3 weren’t detected above 101. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (C) Luciferase exercise noticed for a serial dilution of purified recombinant luciferase enzyme. The preliminary quantity of luciferase within the response was 12.6 μg. The restrict of detection was reached at a 1 × 107 fold dilution (1.26 pg luciferase), indicated by the crimson arrow. This corresponds to 1.2 × 107 molecules of luciferase and 1,200 molecules of luciferase per cell from RNAs containing both a deleted IRES or ΔSLII-3. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). GuHCl, guanidine hydrochloride; IRES, inside ribosome entry web site; RLU, relative mild unit, wild-type.
Oblique detection of PV 3CD produced by the IRES-independent mechanism
Translation of PV genomes can’t be detected by immunofluorescence within the absence of genome replication [41]. Nevertheless, the presence of PV 3CD may be detected within the absence of genome replication due to the capability of this protein to induce biosynthesis of phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate (PI4P) [41]. Within the uninfected or mock-transfected cell, PI4P localizes to the Golgi equipment (anti-PI4P within the column marked Mock in Fig 7). Transfection and replication of WT PV subgenomic replicon RNA results in induction and redistribution of PI4P (anti-PI4P within the column marked WT in Fig 7). On this circumstance, it is usually attainable to watch viral proteins (anti-3D within the column marked WT in Fig 7). Nevertheless, PI4P was additionally induced within the presence of GuHCl (anti-PI4P within the column marked WT + GuHCl in Fig 7) [41]. Underneath these situations, viral proteins weren’t detected (anti-3D within the column marked WT + GuHCl in Fig 7) [41]. Deletion of the IRES additionally causes induction of PI4P within the absence (anti-PI4P within the column marked ΔIRES in Fig 7) and presence of GuHCl (anti-PI4P within the column marked ΔIRES + GuHCl in Fig 7). The identical is just not true for a full-length genomic RNA containing cease codons following 3B-coding sequence, which might preclude manufacturing of 3CD (anti-PI4P within the column marked 3B STOP in Fig 7). These observations present help for the expression of 3CD within the absence of the IRES at ranges maybe on par with these expressed by the WT subgenomic replicon within the presence of GuHCl.
Fig 7. Induction and redistribution of PI4P serve an oblique technique to detect manufacturing of 3CD by the IRES-independent translation mechanism.
Immunofluorescence of cells after transfection. HeLa cells had been transfected with in vitro transcribed subgenomic replicon RNAs: WT; ΔIRES, and a full-length genomic RNA with two STOP codons after the 3B-coding sequence: 3B STOP. WT and ΔIRES transfected cells had been additionally handled with 3 mM GuHCl. Six hours posttransfection, cells had been immunostained for the presence of PI4P (crimson) and 3D (inexperienced). Nucleus was stained with DAPI (blue). Mock represents cells that had been taken by way of the transfection protocol within the absence of RNA. PI4P was induced and redistributed in cells transfected with WT and ΔIRES, each within the absence and presence of GuHCl, however not 3B STOP. 3D was detected in cells transfected with WT within the absence of GuHCl solely. Scale bars are equal to 10 μm. GuHCl, guanidine hydrochloride; IRES, inside ribosome entry web site; PI4P, phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate; WT, wild-type.
IRES-independent translation happens despite PKR activation and eIF2α phosphorylation
Our experiments use RNA produced by transcription in vitro. The absence of a 5′-cap and the presence of structured RNA on the 5′-end of the viral genome counsel the likelihood that the double-stranded RNA-activated protein kinase, PKR, shall be activated upon transfection of viral RNA into the cell [42]. Activation of PKR would then result in phosphorylation of eIF2α and cessation of eIF2-dependent mechanisms of translation initiation within the cell [33].
To evaluate the standing of PKR and eIF2α, we repeated the experiment described above in Fig 7 and processed the cells for evaluation by western blotting. Threonine-446 (T446) phosphorylated PKR was under detectable limits in untransfected cells (mock in Fig 8A), however PKR was clearly detectable in these cells (mock in Fig 8B). Transfection of all RNAs prompted phosphorylation of PKR on T446 (Fig 8A). Apparently, all detectable PKR acquired the hyperphosphorylated state upon transfection of every RNA based mostly on the mobility shift noticed (Fig 8B). The noticed activation of PKR was prompted solely by the RNA transfection with none contributions from genome replication because the alerts had been the identical within the presence of a replication inhibitor (WT + GuHCl in Fig 8A and 8B). Activation of PKR corresponded to phosphorylation of eIF2α on serine-51 (S51) (Fig 8C). We didn’t observe any adjustments to the detectable pool of eIF2α (Fig 8D). The canonical enterovirus IRES requires eIF2α to operate [43]. Due to this fact, any IRES-independent mechanism used would seemingly require elements aside from eIF2α.
Fig 8. Activation of PKR and phosphorylation of eIF2α phosphorylation in response to transfection of PV subgenomic replicon RNA.
Western blot evaluation of p-PKR (T446) (panel A), PKR (panel B), p-eIF2α (S51) (panel C), and eIF2α (panel D) in HeLa cell lysates. Cells had been transfected individually with PV subgenomic replicon RNAs: ΔIRES, 3B STOP, and WT or with WT within the presence of three mM GuHCl (WT_GuHCl). Six hours posttransfection, cells had been processed for western blot evaluation and probed utilizing anti-p-PKR (T446), PKR, p-eIF2α (S51), and eIF2α antibodies; α/β tubulin was used as a loading management. Blots supplied in Supporting data (S1 Uncooked Pictures). GuHCl, guanidine hydrochloride; PKR, RNA-activated protein kinase; PV, poliovirus; T446, threonine-446; WT, wild-type.
A main web site of initiation of IRES-independent translation is positioned inside 2A-coding sequence
We evaluated the PV nonstructural protein-coding sequence for the presence of methionine residues conserved throughout members of the enterovirus genus. The primary conserved methionine residue was positioned on the carboxyl terminus of the 2A protease (Fig 9A). We reasoned that if this methionine residue represented the initiating methionine for the IRES-independent mechanism, then recombination needs to be inhibited by introducing cease codons downstream of the corresponding AUG within the donor genome, which was noticed (② x acceptor in Fig 9B). The noticed recombination effectivity was lowered by greater than 10-fold relative to manage (evaluate to ① x acceptor in Fig 9B). Mutation of this AUG codon to UUG or UUU had no impact on recombination (③ or ④ x acceptor in Fig 9B). Nevertheless, deletion of this AUG did (⑤ x acceptor in Fig 9B). Earlier research of 2A carried out by the Wimmer laboratory demonstrated that the carboxyl terminus of 2A was not essential for enzyme operate, however the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence on this area was delicate to mutation [44]. We propose that the conserved methionine residue is the primary residue of the polyprotein produced by the IRES-independent mechanism. Nevertheless, the sequence of the initiation codon used will not be restricted to AUG codon.
Fig 9. Deletion of a conserved AUG within the 2A-coding sequence reduces translation of the donor RNA resulting in a discount in viral RNA recombinants.
(A) Main amino acid sequence alignment of a portion of 2A sequence from PV, EV-A71, CVB3, and EV-D68. Numbers check with 2A protein sequence. The conserved methionine is proven in crimson. The websites for the insertion of two STOP codons are proven in crimson; the codons AAU and UAC had been modified to UAG and UAA, respectively. (B) Comparability of infectious virus produced by the indicated donor RNAs with the desired modifications: ①: ΔIRES; ②: Insertion of two STOP codons after the 2A-coding sequence (2A STOP); ③: AUG to UUG; ④: AUG to UUU; ⑤: ΔAUG. Websites for the modifications are depicted. In all instances, the acceptor RNA contained two STOP codons after 3B-coding sequence (3B STOP) and the mutation that inactivates the RdRp (GDD to GAA). Indicated are the relative viral titers with the typical viral titer from recombination utilizing ΔIRES donor (①) and acceptor set as 100% (7,500 pfu/mL, imply ± SEM; n = 3). Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (* signifies p < 0.05, *** signifies p < 0.001, n.s. signifies not vital). The 2A STOP and ΔAUG lowered viral recombinants, whereas the AUG to UUG and AUG to UUU didn’t. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). IRES, inside ribosome entry web site; PV, poliovirus; RdRp, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
Contribution of eIF2A and eIF2D to IRES-independent translation
Initiation of translation in mammals is not regarded as as particular because it as soon as was. Use of non-AUG codons below situations by which eIF2α is lively is now nicely documented [32,45] (Fig 10A). Nevertheless, below situations of stress by which eIF2α is phosphorylated and regular translation is not lively, different mechanisms of translation initiation have developed [32,33]. One such mechanism makes use of eIF2A and eIF2D. Along with initiating at an AUG codon, these different initiation elements use a wide range of distinctive and overlapping codons (Fig 9A) [32]. Essentially the most direct check of the usage of eIF2A and eIF2D is genetic ablation of the expression of 1 or each. This strategy was facilitated by utilizing the HAP1 cell line [46,47]. HAP1 cells are a near-haploid, human cell line derived from the KBM-7 myelogenous leukemia cell line [46]. HAP1 cell traces null for expression of most nonessential genes can be found within the Horizon Discovery knockout (KO) assortment [48].
Fig 10. eIF2A and eIF2D initiation elements contribute to IRES-independent translation.
(A) Begin codons utilized by eIF2, eIF2A, and eIF2D initiation elements [32]. Amino acids for every codon is in parentheses. Initiation factor-specific begin codons are indicated in crimson. (B) Comparability of infectious virus produced by the indicated donor RNAs with modifications that alter the conserved AUG to initiation issue particular begin codons: ①: ΔIRES; ②: ΔAUG; ③: AUG to UUG; ④: AUG to UUU; ⑤: AUG to CUG; ⑥: AUG to CUA; ⑦: AUG to CUC. Codons UUG, UUU, and CUG may be utilized by initiation elements, however CUA and CUC can’t. In all instances, the acceptor RNA contained two STOP codons after 3B-coding sequence (3B STOP) and the mutation that inactivates the RdRp (GDD to GAA). The indicated set of donor and acceptor RNAs in a 1:5 molar ratio (complete 0.3 μg) was cotransfected into HAP1 WT cells. Indicated are the relative viral titers with the typical viral titer from recombination utilizing ΔIRES donor (①) and acceptor set as 100% (647 pfu/mL, imply ± SEM; n = 3). Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (*significance stage p = < 0.05, ** p = < 0.01, n.s. signifies not vital). The ΔAUG, CUA, and CUC lowered viral recombinants considerably, whereas UUG, UUU, and CUG didn’t, in line with eIF2A and eIF2D contributing to IRES-independent translation. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (C, D) Viral recombinants are lowered in HAP1 cells poor for eIF2A and eIF2D expression. The indicated set of donor and acceptor RNAs was cotransfected into HAP1 WT or eIF2A-KO or eIF2D-KO cells. Donor RNA: ΔIRES (panel C); RLuc-WT (panel D). Relative viral titers with the typical viral titer from HAP1 WT set as 100% had been proven (panel C, 7,433 pfu/mL; panel D, 243 pfu/mL; imply ± SEM). Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (**** signifies p < 0.0001). Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). IRES, inside ribosome entry web site; KO, knockout; RdRp, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase; WT, wild-type.
HAP1 cells supported the IRES-independent mechanism of translation within the context of the cell-based PV recombination assay (donor ① in Fig 10B). As we’ll describe under, these cells additionally turn into prone to PV an infection. The conserved AUG codon in 2A-coding sequence was required within the HAP1 background (donor ② in Fig 10B). Each distinctive and shared non-AUG codons used for initiation by eIF2A and eIF2D had been nicely tolerated as substitutions for AUG within the donor genome (donors ③, ④, and ⑤ in Fig 10B). The eIF2A and/or eIF2D-utilized codons, UUG and CUG, each code for leucine. CUA and CUC codons additionally code for leucine however will not be utilized by both eIF2A or eIF2D (Fig 10A) [32]. These two codons weren’t as nicely tolerated as the opposite leucine codons (donors ⑥ and ⑦ in Fig 10B). Collectively, these knowledge are in line with a job for eIF2A and/or eIF2D in IRES-independent translation.
To probe the position of eIF2A and eIF2D in IRES-independent translation, we evaluated recombination utilizing the ΔIRES donor in eIF2A-KO and eIF2D-KO cell traces (Fig 10C). The absence of both issue diminished recombination by almost 8-fold relative to WT cells (Fig 10C). Apparently, recombination pushed by proteins produced by an IRES-dependent mechanism additionally exhibited a dependence on eIF2A and eIF2D, with recombination lowered by 15-fold within the absence of both issue (Fig 10D).
Proof for a cis-acting RNA ingredient required for eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent translation initiation
As part of a broadcast examine on triggers and mechanisms of template switching by enteroviral polymerases, we accomplished an RNA sequencing experiment for EV-A71 (knowledge deposited within the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) repository below accession quantity GSE183959) [19]. We used that knowledge set to investigate the nucleotide-substitution frequency throughout the genome (Fig 11A). We recognized a 78-nt stretch upstream of the AUG used for eIF2A/eiF2D-dependent, translation–initiation mechanism as a web site with a under common frequency of mutation (Fig 11B). Each the nucleotide and amino acid sequences on this area for prototype species within the enterovirus genus exhibited a average (black asterisks point out full conservation) to excessive (crimson asterisks point out conservation in three of the 4 enteroviruses) sequence conservation, relying on the constraints utilized (Fig 11C). This 78-nt sequence folded into an RNA construction for all enteroviruses, though the main points differed extra considerably than anticipated for sequence conservation (Fig 11D). Additional empirical evaluation of this area shall be required to elucidate the bona fide construction.
Fig 11. Identification of an RNA sequence upstream of the AUG codon required for eIF2A/2D-dependent translation.
(A) Nucleotide substitutions at every place throughout the EV-A71 genome have been outlined by deep RNA sequencing. The typical substitution frequency is 38. Some areas exhibit a decrease common; these areas of the genome might encode cis-acting RNA parts. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). Your complete knowledge set is accessible on the GEO repository below accession quantity GSE183959. (B) The area from 3,602–3,679 of the EV-A71 genome displays a below-average frequency of nucleotide substitutions. This area corresponds to a sequence 78-nt upstream of the AUG used for eIF2A/2D-dependent translation. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (C) Alignment of the corresponding nucleotide sequence and amino acid sequence reveals average to excessive sequence id amongst enterovirus (PV, EV-A71, CVB3, and EV-D68). Black asterisks point out conservation throughout all enteroviruses; crimson asterisks point out conservation in three of the 4 enteroviruses. (D) RNA secondary construction is predicted on this area for all enteroviruses. The RNAfold algorithm was used. The small print of the fold assorted throughout the enteroviruses extra considerably than sequence would possibly predict. (E) Comparability of infectious PV produced utilizing donor RNAs harboring a deletion of the 78-nt sequence (Δ78 nt) or containing the corresponding sequences from EV-A71 or EV-D68. The acceptor RNA used doesn’t help translation of 3CD or an lively polymerase. Virus produced (pfu/mL ± SEM; n = 3) from every cotransfection is proven. Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (* signifies p < 0.05, ** signifies p < 0.01; n.s. signifies nonsignificant). The sequence contributes to manufacturing of virus. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (F) Contribution of the 78-nt sequence to IRES-independent translation not directly by monitoring PI4P ranges and localization as described within the legend to Fig 7. Donor RNAs of panel E had been used, along with the ΔAUG donor RNA utilized in Fig 9 that has a powerful defect to virus manufacturing. Quantitation of PI4P staining in roughly 60 cells chosen randomly from three separate fields expressed as fluorescence depth is proven. A major discount of PI4P/translation of the genome (p < 0.0001) was noticed for Δ78 and ΔAUG solely. Scale bars are equal to 10 μm. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). GEO, Gene Expression Omnibus; IRES, inside ribosome entry web site; PI4P, phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate; PV, poliovirus.
To evaluate the useful significance, if any, of this 78-nt stretch of RNA, we evaluated the influence of deleting this sequence on the effectivity of PV RNA recombination. Deletion of the 78-nt sequence (Δ78) within the donor RNA prompted a major discount in recombination (see ② X acceptor in Fig 11E). Substituting the PV sequence with that from EV-A71 or EV-D68 was worse than deleting the sequence (see ③, ④ X acceptor in Fig 11E).
As a result of recombinant viruses produced by these donor–acceptor pairs would reconstitute the WT, PV 78-nt sequence, impaired virus manufacturing seemingly displays impaired translation attributable to introducing the 78-nt sequence from different viruses. We evaluated the flexibility of the assorted constructs to help translation utilizing the PI4P-induction assay (Fig 11F). The Δ78 assemble was as faulty for PI4P induction because the ΔAUG assemble (Fig 11F). The only interpretation of this experiment is that the 78-nt sequence represents a cis-acting RNA ingredient required for eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent translation. The introduction of the sequences from EV-A71 or EV-D68 didn’t trigger a major change in PI4P induction (Fig 11F). The shortage of congruence between this assay and the recombination assay above might replicate a a lot decrease requirement in translation to induce PI4P relative to that required to provide recombinant virus. Future experiments will must be carried out to differentiate between these prospects.
Launching genome replication by an infection suppresses the requirement for eIF2A and/or eIF2D
As proven above, launching genome replication by RNA transfection results in activation of PKR [42] and maybe different sample recognition receptors (PRRs) contributing to innate immunity [49]. Activation of PKR would result in phosphorylation of eIF2α and the necessity for eIF2A or eIF2D. Nevertheless, an infection may not exhibit the identical dependence on these different translation initiation elements as a result of the 5′-VPg might preclude activation of PKR and different PRRs.
As part of our effort to detect IRES-independent translation by monitoring the exercise of an expressed reporter, we constructed a genomic replicon harboring nanoLuciferase (NL, Nluc, or nanoLuc) between 2C- and 3A-coding sequences. Surprisingly, this assemble truly replicated, yielding a 4-log amplification of nanoLuc exercise, and GuHCl inhibited replication (Fig 12A). This software permitted us to match outcomes for transfection or an infection within the absence or presence of eIF2A or eIF2D. As noticed for the normal luciferase reporter (Fig 10D), replication of this nanoLuc replicon benefited considerably from the presence of eIF2A and eIF2D when RNA was launched by transfection (Fig 12B). In distinction, introduction of the nanoLuc reporter by an infection didn’t exhibit a major dependence of both eIF2A or eIF2D (Fig 12C). Simultaneous elimination of each eIF2A and eIF2D exhibited a phenotype equal to that noticed for the person KOs (Fig 12D). We validated the HAP1 KO cell traces utilized by evaluating expression of eIF2A and eIF2D utilizing western blotting (Fig 12E and 12F). Importantly lack of eIF2A or eIF2D didn’t influence the extent of eIF2α in cells (Fig 12G). We had been unable to carry out the comparable experiments with EV-A71 as a result of this virus doesn’t replicate nicely or unfold within the HAP1 background. We conclude that an IRES-independent, eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism exists in PV and different enteroviruses to maintain replication below situations by which the “regular” mechanism for translation initiation is unavailable.
Fig 12. Contribution of eIF2A and eIF2D to translation of enteroviral RNAs.
(A) NanoLuc exercise in HAP1 WT cells transfected with a full-length PV genome with the nanoLuc-coding sequence embedded between 2C- and 3A-coding areas (2C/3A-Nluc). As a management, the PV 2C/3A-Nluc RNA was transfected within the presence of GuHCl. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (B) Comparability of nanoLuc exercise at six hours posttransfection utilizing PV 2C/3A-Nluc RNA in HAP1 WT, eIF2A-KO, and eIF2D-KO cells. Knowledge from one among two organic replicates with comparable outcomes, every with two technical replicates. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (C) Comparability of nanoLuc exercise at six hours postinfection utilizing an MOI of 0.1 or 1 in HAP1 WT, eIF2A-KO, and eIF2D-KO cells. Knowledge from one among two organic replicates with comparable outcomes, every with two technical replicates. Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (D) Comparability of nanoLuc exercise at six hours posttransfection utilizing PV 2C/3A-Nluc RNA (Transfection), and at six hours postinfection utilizing an MOI of 0.1 or 1 (An infection) in HAP1 WT, and eIF2A-KO/eIF2D-KO cells. Knowledge from one among two organic replicates with comparable outcomes, every with two or three technical replicates. Statistical analyses had been carried out utilizing unpaired, two-tailed t check (** signifies p < 0.01, n.s. signifies not vital). Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). (E-G) Western blot evaluation of eIF2A (panel E), eIF2D (panel F), and eIF2α (panel G) in HAP1 WT, eIF2A-KO, eIF2D-KO, and eIF2A-KO/eIF2D-KO cells. Cells had been processed for western blot evaluation and probed utilizing anti-eIF2A, eIF2D, and eIF2α antibodies. GAPDH and tubulin had been used as a loading management for western blot. Blots supplied in Supporting data (S1 Uncooked Pictures). GuHCl, guanidine hydrochloride; KO, knockout; PV, poliovirus; RLU, relative mild unit; WT, wild-type.
Single-cell evaluation suggests a job for eIF2A and eIF2D throughout an infection
It’s changing into more and more clear that evaluation of viral replication dynamics on the inhabitants stage can masks phenotypes [50]. For these experiments, we use a GFP reporter expressed by infectious PV to watch replication dynamics in 100 to 200 single cells at intervals of half-hour for 12 to 24 hours [50,51]. We consider 4 parameters: (1) begin level, which is the time by which the fluorescence turns into detectable and signifies an an infection has been established; (2) most, which is the utmost worth of the noticed fluorescence and correlates with the magnitude of genome replication; (3) slope, which is the speed of the fluorescence change and correlates with the velocity of genome amplification; and (4) an infection time, which is the time from begin to most and correlates with the virus era time [50]. We plot distributions of those parameters and carry out statistical checks to find out if the perturbation below investigation causes a major distinction relative to the management [50,51].
Right here, we utilized this experimental paradigm to find out if a phenotype exists for replication of PV when eIF2A or eIF2D is just not current. Within the presence of eIF2A and eIF2D, PV establishes an infection sooner (Fig 13A), replicates to larger ranges (Fig 13B), and replicates sooner (Fig 13C) than within the absence of one among these elements. The lack of eIF2A or eIF2D primarily prevents replication of PV requiring an extended an infection time (Fig 13D). Sluggish replication might happen in cells higher in a position to make use of intrinsic protection to delay viral an infection by activating eIF2α. The existence of two lessons of cells can also be supported by analysis of the share of cells contaminated within the presence or absence of eIF2A/eIF2D. One-quarter of cells uncovered to PV don’t set up an infection within the absence of eIF2A or eIF2D (Fig 13E). Quantitative evaluation of the information is introduced in Fig 13F and 13G. We conclude that the IRES-independent, eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism seemingly features throughout regular an infection when sure elements are current or not within the host cell.
Fig 13. Single-cell evaluation suggests a job for eIF2A and eIF2D throughout an infection.
Single-cell evaluation [50,51] utilizing an MOI of 5 of PV-eGFPPV in HAP1 WT, eIF2A-KO, and eIF2D-KO cells. Comparability of the distributions of every parameter: begin level (panel A); most (panel B); slope (panel C); and an infection time (panel D); is proven (E) Proportion of PV-infected cells utilizing HAP1 WT, eIF2A-KO, and eIF2D-KO cells (imply ± SD, n = 3) (Left). Adjusted P values of the t checks (Proper). (F, G) Quantitative evaluation from the information introduced in panels A–D. Proven are the imply and normal deviation for every of the indicated parameters (panel F). Adjusted P values of the t checks (panel G). Numerical knowledge supplied as Supporting data (S1 Knowledge). hpi, hours postinfection; KO, knockout; NFI, normalized fluorescence depth; PV, poliovirus; WT, wild-type.
Dialogue
For recombination to happen between two genetically distinct genomes by a template-switching mechanism, the 2 genomes should be localized to the identical genome-replication organelle. How enteroviral genomes are trafficked to the positioning of replication, nonetheless, is just not recognized. The central speculation driving this examine was that determinants positioned within the polyprotein mediated localization to the genome-replication organelle, maybe cotranslationally (Fig 1A and 1B). Due to this fact, translation of each genomes can be a prerequisite for recombination (Fig 1C and 1D). Such a requirement can be in line with earlier research by different laboratories which have established a requirement for translation of the polyprotein in cis for genome replication to happen [38,39]. Nevertheless, we noticed that inactivation of translation of a donor PV genome by deleting the IRES enhanced recombination by 5-fold over management (Fig 2).
Research of a number of positive-strand RNA viruses, together with PV, have recommended the existence of nonreplicative recombination [31,52,53]. Such a mechanism is impartial of the RdRp and happens by a direct chemical ligation of two overlapping fragments of RNA [54]. Nevertheless, our research demonstrated the requirement for an lively RdRp within the IRES-deleted, donor PV genome (Fig 3). The dependence on an lively RdRp would, by definition, point out replicative recombination and necessitate translation by an IRES-independent mechanism. As a result of the IRES eradicated the whole thing of the 5′-UTR, it was attainable that the traditional constraints on translation initiation had been misplaced, and we had been observing one thing cryptic and/or irrelevant [55]. We dominated out this risk by inactivating the IRES with a 10-nt deletion; this donor PV genome additionally supported recombination in an RdRp-dependent method (Fig 4). We reached comparable conclusions utilizing EV-A71 (Fig 5). Wanting again at the entire research supporting nonreplicative recombination, all of them employed RNA transfection of RNAs able to expressing the RdRp utilizing an IRES-independent mechanism [13,31]. These earlier research by no means thought of another translation mechanism.
Collectively, our outcomes recommended the compelling risk that an IRES-independent mechanism exists for translation of the nonstructural area of the polyprotein. We had been unable to detect viral proteins instantly or not directly by utilizing normal reporters (Fig 6). Nevertheless, we had been capable of exploit our earlier commentary that 3CD induces PI4P, even when current at ranges undetectable by immunofluorescence [41]. Constructs missing the IRES induced PI4P in a fashion requiring translation by way of the 3C- and 3D-coding sequences (Fig 7). We recognized an AUG codon within the 3′-end of 2A-coding sequence that’s conserved amongst viruses comprising the enterovirus genus (Fig 9A). The Wimmer lab confirmed years in the past that this area of the protein was not important for protease operate however recommended the existence of cis-acting replication ingredient on this area [44]. Our reverse-genetic evaluation supported the usage of this AUG as the beginning web site for IRES-independent translation (Figs 9 and 10).
What was surprising, nonetheless, was that a number of, non-AUG codons additionally supported translation initiation (Figs 9 and 10). Much more surprising was that translation initiation relied on eIF2A and eIF2D (Fig 10). These elements are important for translation below situations by which eIF2α has been phosphorylated, for instance, in response to activation of a mediator of the built-in stress response [33]. Activation of PKR and phosphorylation of eIF2α was fairly evident in our system (Fig 8). eIF2A and eIF2D use non-AUG codons for initiation (Fig 10A) [32]. Nevertheless, the dependence on eIF2A and eIF2D was noticed not just for a genome missing an IRES (Fig 10C) but in addition for a genome containing an IRES (Fig 10D), in line with RNA transfection activating PKR (Fig 8). We didn’t observe a powerful dependence on eIF2A and/or eIF2D when an infection was launched utilizing virus (Fig 12).
RNA produced by in vitro transcription comprises a triphosphate on the 5′-end, whereas the genuine viral genome would include the 3B-encoded, genome-linked protein (VPg) [56]. In our system, cleavage by a hammerhead ribozyme leaves a hydroxyl on the 5′-end, however this modification within the context of RNA construction is thought to activate PKR [57]. Fragments of the 5′-end with its triphosphate are seemingly not fully faraway from our RNA preparations. The 5′-triphosphate is a well known pathogen-associated molecular sample acknowledged by antiviral PRRs just like the double-stranded PKR [42], the interferon-inducible protein with tetratricopeptide repeats (IFIT) [58], and the retinoic acid-inducible gene product (RIG-I) [59]. Due to this fact, the IRES-independent, eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism of translation might have developed to antagonize viral restriction by eIF2α kinases and IFITs.
Initiation of translation on the PV IRES makes use of a number of mobile elements [60]. eIF4G and eIF4A bind to the IRES and recruit the 43S preinitiation advanced comprised of the 40S ribosomal subunit, eIF3, tRNA-Meti-bound eIF2, amongst different elements (Fig 14A) [61]. We’re not the primary to counsel the usage of another translation mechanism throughout PV an infection. The Lloyd laboratory confirmed that translation of the PV polyprotein late in an infection doesn’t require eIF2 [62]. The most effective-known eIF2-less mechanisms exchange eIF2 with eIF5B [63,64] or MCT-1•DENR (a number of copies in T-cell lymphoma • density regulated protein advanced) (Fig 14B) [65,66]. Substitute of eIF2 eliminates sensitivity to eIF2α kinases and expands the likelihood to be used of non-AUG codons. Nevertheless, the parts and mechanism for meeting of the preinitiation advanced are regarded as unchanged relative to the eIF2-dependent mechanism (Fig 14A and 14B) [60].
Fig 14. Fashions for initiation of translation on the enterovirus genome.
(A) Underneath regular situations, eIF4G and eIF4A bind to the first IRES and recruit the 43S preinitiation advanced composed of the 40S ribosomal subunit (yellow), eIF2/GTP/Met-tRNAiMet (inexperienced), and eIF3, amongst different elements. Initiation can also be facilitated by interactions of the poly(rA)-binding protein, PABP, sure to the three′-poly(rA) tail. This interplay might use eIF4G or viral/mobile elements interacting with the cloverleaf. Translation begins on the AUG begin web site in an eIF2-directed method. (B) A number of distinct eIF2-independent mechanisms exist. Each eIF5B and MCT-1•DENR (brown) can substitute for eIF2 to advertise recruitment of initiator tRNA and translation initiation on the AUG begin web site. These elements can also provoke at non-AUG codons. (C) A canonical IRES-independent, eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism. Activation of intrinsic antiviral protection mechanisms, for instance, on account of the presence of the 5′-OH as a part of structured RNA in our biosynthetic enteroviral genomes, will result in inactivation of eIF2 and even perhaps sequestration of eIF3. The noncanonical translation initiation elements eIF2A and eIF2D (black) direct translation initiation from a area of RNA (crimson) inside 2A-coding sequence in a fashion that’s not depending on the presence of an AUG codon however might require cis-acting RNA ingredient upstream of the positioning of translation initiation as recommended by the research reported herein. Apart from the 40S ribosomal subunit, elements resulting in formation of the interpretation–initiation advanced will not be recognized.
Primarily, nothing is thought concerning the eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism(s) of translation initiation in cells (Fig 14C) [34]. Nevertheless, this mechanism is crucial for cells to outlive below stress and has been linked to neurodegenerative illnesses and most cancers [33]. Efforts to reveal a job for eIF2A and/or eIF2D in viral translation have been inconclusive [36,37,67,68], with the bulk view being the absence of a job for both issue [67,68]. Due to this fact, our demonstration that enteroviruses might use these elements when intrinsic antiviral defenses have been activated might characterize a possibility not solely to pursue a job for these elements in different viral programs but in addition to start to outline the cis-acting RNA determinants driving initiation of translation utilizing these elements. On this regard, we noticed a dependence of the eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism on a 78-nt cis-acting RNA ingredient positioned upstream of the positioning of initiation (Fig 11). As mentioned above, quite a few mechanisms exist to operate within the absence of lively eIF2, so the eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism might additional prolong independence from canonical initiation elements. One candidate can be eIF3. IFITs activated by 5′-ppp-RNA sequester eIF3 to decrease translation. Any residual 5′-ppp fragments produced throughout in vitro transcription ought to activate IFITs. The IRES-independent, eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism would due to this fact be predicted to operate within the absence of eIF3.
Our research of PV an infection on the inhabitants stage hid any vital distinction in replication within the presence or absence of eIF2A or eIF2D (Fig 12C and 12D). Nevertheless, research on the single-cell stage revealed a transparent benefit to having each genes expressed (Fig 13A and 13B). There have been two intriguing observations. First, infections that required longer than 5 hours for completion gave the impression to be misplaced within the absence of eIF2A or eIF2D (Fig 13E). This inhabitants might replicate these by which the IRES-independent, eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism was required, maybe as a result of the infecting PV variant activated intrinsic defenses. Second, 25% of the cells appeared recalcitrant to an infection within the absence of eIF2A or eIF2D (Fig 13E). Maybe intrinsic defenses are up-regulated impartial of an infection on this inhabitants of cells. The underside line is that virus variant- and/or host-driven circumstances exist that require eIF2A and/or eIF2D for correct decision, and the requirement for these elements might solely turn out to be obvious by utilizing a single-cell evaluation.
The literature on eIF2A and eIF2D suggests that every features independently of the opposite. This circumstance might merely replicate that every protein has been studied within the absence of the opposite. Our outcomes present fairly clearly that lack of eIF2A or eIF2D alone reduces translation to the identical extent and causes an equal phenotype (Fig 12B), with none additional discount noticed when expression of each proteins is eradicated (Fig 12D). These knowledge counsel cooperation between these proteins. The soundness of every is impartial of the opposite (Fig 12D). Maybe recruitment to or operate on the ribosome requires each when eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism of translation is engaged.
Group B enteroviruses set up persistent infections within the coronary heart and pancreas that result in myocarditis and diabetes, respectively [69,70]. Deletion of the 5′-terminal cis-acting replication ingredient, the so-called cloverleaf, is a signature of the genomes that persist within the coronary heart [71]. How these deletions influence IRES-dependent translation is unclear, however viral proteins are under the restrict of detection throughout persistent an infection [71]. The IRES-independent, eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent translation mechanism displays the entire options one would possibly count on to help persistence of an enteroviral genome. Capsid proteins wouldn’t be made, so particles wouldn’t be launched, resulting in irritation or immune responses. The 2A protease is kind of environment friendly at impairing host cell features [72], and this protein wouldn’t be made. The 3C(D) protease may also be poisonous [73]. A lot of the injury attributable to this protein occurs late in an infection, so there may be seemingly a requirement for prime concentrations of the protein. Not one of the nonstructural proteins accumulates to detectable ranges. Genomes depending on this different translation mechanism replicate and recombine as demonstrated herein.
In conclusion, this examine has revealed an eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent mechanism of translation initiation utilized by PV which may be conserved in all enteroviruses that seems to allow continued translation and genome replication below situations by which intrinsic antiviral defenses have been activated. Discovery of the cis-acting determinants driving this different translation mechanism will additional illuminate the contributions of this mechanism to viral multiplication, health, and pathogenesis. Lastly, our identification of a cis-acting RNA ingredient contributing to eIF2A/eIF2D-dependent initiation of translation might allow elucidation of the repertoire of things and pathway used for initiation.
Supplies and strategies
Cells and viruses
Adherent monolayers of HeLa and L929 fibroblasts had been grown in DMEM/F-12 media. Adherent monolayers of human embryonic rhabdomyosarcoma (RD) had been grown in DMEM media. WT HAP1 human haploid cells and HAP1 cells KO for eIF2A (cat# HZGHC002650c001) or eIF2D (cat# HZGHC002651c012) had been bought from Horizon Discovery Group plc. All media was supplemented with 100 U/mL penicillin, 100 μg/mL streptomycin, and 10% heat-inactivated (HI) FBS. All cells had been passaged within the presence of trypsin–EDTA.
WT and recombinant viruses had been recovered following transfection of RNA produced in vitro (see under) from full-length cDNA or from the cell-based assay parental companions. PV sort 1 (Mahoney) and EV-A71 (C2) had been used all through this examine. Virus was quantified by pfu/mL. The place said, GuHCl (Sigma) was added to development media at 3 mM.
Plasmids, in vitro transcription, cell transfection, and virus quantification
Subgenomic PV replicon, ΔIRES, and a replication-incompetent full-length PV genomic RNA had been beforehand described [13]. All insertions/deletions had been created utilizing both overlap extension PCR or gBlock gene fragments from IDT. Oligonucleotides used on this examine may be present in S1 Desk. The presence of the specified insertions/deletions and the absence of extra mutations had been verified by DNA sequencing. 3B STOP was modified from a full-length PV genomic RNA by introducing two STOP codons (UAGUAA) after the 3B-coding sequence. ΔSLII-3 was modified from a subgenomic PV replicon by introducing a 10-nucleotide deletion (nt 185–189, nt 198–202) into the SLII-3 area of the IRES [40]. For a full-length PV genome with the nanoLuc-coding sequence embedded between 2C- and 3A-coding areas (2C/3A-Nluc), nanoLuciferase-encoding sequence carrying a 3C protease cleavage web site at its carboxyl terminus was inserted between the 2C and the 3A areas of the PV sequence. Translation occurred from the pure PV initiation codon. Proteolytic cleavage and launch of nanoLuciferase occurred by regular 3C protease exercise. Plasmids encoding PV genomes (full size or subgenomic) had been linearized with ApaI. The EV-A71 C2 replicon and ΔIRES had been beforehand described [15]. 3B STOP was modified from a beforehand described EV-A71 C2-MP4 infectious clone [15,74]. The EV-A71 C2 replicon and ΔIRES had been linearized with SalI. 3B STOP was linearized with EagI.
All linearized cDNAs had been transcribed in vitro utilizing T7 RNA Polymerase handled with 2U DNAse Turbo (Thermo Fisher) to take away residual DNA template. The RNA transcripts had been purified utilizing RNeasy Mini Equipment (Qiagen) earlier than spectrophotometric quantification. Purified RNA in RNase-free H2O was transfected into cells utilizing TransMessenger (Qiagen). Virus yield was quantified by plaque assay in both HeLa (PV) or RD (EV-A71) cells. Briefly, cells and media had been harvested at time factors posttransfection (laid out in the primary textual content or under), subjected to 3 freeze–thaw cycles, and clarified. Supernatant was then used on contemporary cells in 6-well plates; virus an infection was allowed to proceed for half-hour. Media was then eliminated, and cells had been washed with PBS (pH 7.4) earlier than a 1% (w/v) agarose-media overlay was added. Cells had been incubated for both 2 to three days for PV or 3 to 4 days for EV-A71 after which fastened and stained with crystal violet for virus quantification.
Antibodies
Antibody for staining PI4P was bought from Echelon Biosciences. Antibody towards PV 3D was produced in Cameron lab. Mouse monoclonal anti-GAPDH antibody (10R-G109a) was bought from Fitzgerald Industries. All secondary antibodies used for immunofluorescence had been bought from Invitrogen. Secondary antibodies for western blotting had been bought from Amersham GE Healthcare (rabbit anti-HRP) and Cell Signaling (mouse anti-HRP). Rabbit polyclonal anti-eIF2D antibody (12840-1-AP) and anti-eIF2A antibody (11233-1-AP) had been bought from Proteintech. Rabbit anti-phospho (S51)-eIF2α (9721) and rabbit anti-eIF2α (9722) had been bought from Cell Signaling Know-how. Rabbit anti-phospho (T446)-PKR (32036) and rabbit anti-PKR (32506) had been bought from Abcam.
Oblique immunofluorescence
HeLa cells had been fastened 6 hours posttransfection utilizing 4% formaldehyde in PBS for 20 minutes, adopted by washing in PBS and permeabilizing with 20 μM digitonin for 10 minutes. Digitonin was eliminated, and cells had been rinsed thrice with PBS. Cells had been then blocked with 3% BSA in PBS for 1 hour and incubated with main antibodies for 1 hour. Following washes, cells had been incubated with secondary antibodies for 1 hour, adopted by a 10-minute DAPI incubation. The processed coverslips had been mounted on glass slides utilizing ProLong Glass Antifade Mountant (Thermo Scientific). Samples had been imaged utilizing the Keyence BZ-X800. Main antibodies are anti-PI4P (1:200) and anti-3D (1:100). All dilutions had been made within the blocking buffer.
Western blotting
Cells had been lysed in radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) buffer containing an inhibitor cocktail of phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) (1:100) (American Bioanalytical), Protease Inhibitor Cocktail (Sigma-Aldrich) (1:100), and Phosphatase Inhibitor Cocktail I (Abcam) (1:100). Lysates had been collected and clarified by centrifugation. The lysate was combined with 4× Laemmli buffer, boiled, after which processed by SDS-PAGE. The samples had been then transferred from the gel to a 20-μm nitrocellulose membrane (Bio-Rad) utilizing the TurboBlot system (Bio-Rad). Membranes had been blocked in 5% dry milk with 0.1% Tween-20 or On a regular basis Blocking Reagent (Bio-Rad) and probed with anti-eIF2A (1:1,000), anti-eIF2D (1:1,000), anti-p-eIF2α (1:1,000), anti-p-PKR (1:1,000), anti-eIF2α (1:2,500), or anti-PKR (1:2,500) antibodies in a single day. Anti-rabbit/mouse immunoglobulin G antibody coupled to peroxidase (Amersham GE Healthcare) had been used as secondary antibody at a 1:5,000 dilution. Protein bands had been visualized with the ECL detection system (Amersham, GE Healthcare). The place said, membranes had been subjected to reprobing towards anti-tubulin (1:5,000) or anti-GAPDH (1:5,000).
Luciferase assays
Subgenomic luciferase assays had been carried out as described beforehand [25]. For every time level, 1.0 × 105 cells had been suspended in 100 μl lysis buffer, and 10 μl was used for measuring luciferase exercise. Contemplating the corresponding luciferase molecules to the restrict of detection, as much as 1,200 molecules (1.2 × 107 molecules/1.0 × 104 cells) of luciferase might exist in a cell transfected with RNAs containing both a deleted IRES or ΔSLII-3.
NanoLuc assays had been carried out with the NLuc GLOW Assay package (Nanolight Know-how, #325) following the producer’s protocol.
Cell-based recombination assay
Assays had been used as described beforehand [13–15,75]. For the cell-based assay utilizing HAP1 cells, until in any other case said, equal ratios of RNA (complete 0.5 μg) had been cotransfected into HAP1 cells in 12-well dishes. Cells and media had been harvested at 6 hours posttransfection, subjected to 3 freeze–thaw cycles, and clarified. Virus yield was quantified by plaque assay in HeLa cells.
References
- 1.
Muller HJ. The Relation of Recombination to Mutational Advance. Mutat Res. 1964;106:2–9. pmid:14195748 - 2.
Felsenstein J. The evolutionary benefit of recombination. Genetics. 1974;78(2):737–756. pmid:4448362 - 3.
Simon-Loriere E, Holmes EC. Why do RNA viruses recombine? Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9(8):617–626. pmid:21725337 - 4.
Cuervo NS, Guillot S, Romanenkova N, Combiescu M, Aubert-Combiescu A, Seghier M, et al. Genomic options of intertypic recombinant sabin poliovirus strains excreted by main vaccinees. J Virol. 2001;75(13):5740–5751. pmid:11390576 - 5.
Hahn CS, Lustig S, Strauss EG, Strauss JH. Western equine encephalitis virus is a recombinant virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988;85(16):5997–6001. pmid:3413072 - 6.
Graham RL, Baric RS. Recombination, reservoirs, and the modular spike: mechanisms of coronavirus cross-species transmission. J Virol. 2010;84(7):3134–3146. pmid:19906932 - 7.
Cannon JL, Barclay L, Collins NR, Wikswo ME, Castro CJ, Magaña LC, et al. Genetic and Epidemiologic Developments of Norovirus Outbreaks in the USA from 2013 to 2016 Demonstrated Emergence of Novel GII.4 Recombinant Viruses. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55(7):2208–2221. pmid:28490488 - 8.
Amoutzias GD, Nikolaidis M, Tryfonopoulou E, Chlichlia Ok, Markoulatos P, Oliver SG. The Outstanding Evolutionary Plasticity of Coronaviruses by Mutation and Recombination: Insights for the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future Evolutionary Paths of SARS-CoV-2. Viruses. 2022;14(1):78. pmid:35062282 - 9.
Kew O, Morris-Glasgow V, Landaverde M, Burns C, Shaw J, Garib Z, et al. Outbreak of poliomyelitis in Hispaniola related to circulating sort 1 vaccine-derived poliovirus. Science. 2002;296(5566):356–359. pmid:11896235 - 10.
Kirkegaard Ok, Baltimore D. The mechanism of RNA recombination in poliovirus. Cell. 1986;47(3):433–443. pmid:3021340 - 11.
Copper PD, Steiner-Pryor A, Scotti PD, Delong D. On the character of poliovirus genetic recombinants. J Gen Virol. 1974;23(1):41–49. pmid:4364875 - 12.
Sergiescu D, Aubert-Combiescu A, Crainic R. Recombination between guanidine-resistant and dextran sulfate-resistant mutants of sort 1 poliovirus. J Virol. 1969;3(3):326–330. pmid:4305674 - 13.
Lowry Ok, Woodman A, Prepare dinner J, Evans DJ. Recombination in enteroviruses is a biphasic replicative course of involving the era of greater-than genome size ’imprecise’ intermediates. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10(6):e1004191. pmid:24945141 - 14.
Woodman A, Arnold JJ, Cameron CE, Evans DJ. Biochemical and genetic evaluation of the position of the viral polymerase in enterovirus recombination. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(14):6883–6895. pmid:27317698 - 15.
Woodman A, Lee KM, Janissen R, Gong YN, Dekker NH, Shih SR, et al. Predicting Intraserotypic Recombination in Enterovirus 71. J Virol. 2019;93(4):e02057–e02018. pmid:30487277 - 16.
Li C, Wang H, Shi J, Yang D, Zhou G, Chang J, et al. Senecavirus-Particular Recombination Assays Reveal the Intimate Hyperlink between Polymerase Constancy and RNA Recombination. J Virol. 2019;93(13):e00576–e00519. pmid:30996084 - 17.
Arnold JJ, Cameron CE. Poliovirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (3Dpol) is adequate for template switching in vitro. J Biol Chem. 1999;274(5):2706–2716. pmid:9915801 - 18.
Xiao Y, Rouzine IM, Bianco S, Acevedo A, Goldstein EF, Farkov M, et al. RNA Recombination Enhances Adaptability and Is Required for Virus Unfold and Virulence. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;19(4):493–503. pmid:27078068 - 19.
Janissen R, Woodman A, Shengjuler D, Vallet T, Lee KM, Kuijpers L, et al. Induced intra- and intermolecular template switching as a therapeutic mechanism towards RNA viruses. Mol Cell. 2021;81(21):4467–80.e7. pmid:34687604 - 20.
Dulin D, Arnold JJ, van Laar T, Oh HS, Lee C, Perkins AL, et al. Signatures of Nucleotide Analog Incorporation by an RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase Revealed Utilizing Excessive-Throughput Magnetic Tweezers. Cell Rep. 2017;21(4):1063–1076. pmid:29069588 - 21.
Altan-Bonnet N. Lipid Tales of Viral Replication and Transmission. Developments Cell Biol. 2017;27(3):201–213. pmid:27838086 - 22.
Dahmane S, Kerviel A, Morado DR, Shankar Ok, Ahlman B, Lazarou M, et al. Membrane-assisted meeting and selective secretory autophagy of enteroviruses. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):5986. pmid:36216808 - 23.
Hsu NY, Ilnytska O, Belov G, Santiana M, Chen YH, Takvorian PM, et al. Viral reorganization of the secretory pathway generates distinct organelles for RNA replication. Cell. 2010;141(5):799–811. pmid:20510927 - 24.
Jackson WT. Poliovirus-induced adjustments in mobile membranes all through an infection. Curr Opin Virol. 2014;9:67–73. pmid:25310497 - 25.
Oh HS, Banerjee S, Aponte-Diaz D, Sharma SD, Aligo J, Lodeiro MF, et al. A number of poliovirus-induced organelles recommended by comparability of spatiotemporal dynamics of membranous buildings and phosphoinositides. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(4):e1007036. pmid:29702686 - 26.
Dorner AJ, Dorner LF, Larsen GR, Wimmer E, Anderson CW. Identification of the initiation web site of poliovirus polyprotein synthesis. J Virol. 1982;42(3):1017–1028. pmid:6284987 - 27.
Pelletier J, Sonenberg N. Inside initiation of translation of eukaryotic mRNA directed by a sequence derived from poliovirus RNA. Nature. 1988;334(6180):320–325. pmid:2839775 - 28.
Trono D, Pelletier J, Sonenberg N, Baltimore D. Translation in mammalian cells of a gene linked to the poliovirus 5′ noncoding area. Science. 1988;241(4864):445–448. pmid:2839901 - 29.
Jang SK, Davies MV, Kaufman RJ, Wimmer E. Initiation of protein synthesis by inside entry of ribosomes into the 5′ nontranslated area of encephalomyocarditis virus RNA in vivo. J Virol. 1989;63(4):1651–1660. pmid:2538648 - 30.
Pilipenko EV, Gmyl AP, Maslova SV, Svitkin YV, Sinyakov AN, Agol VI. Prokaryotic-like cis parts within the cap-independent inside initiation of translation on picornavirus RNA. Cell. 1992;68(1):119–131. pmid:1310072 - 31.
Gmyl AP, Belousov EV, Maslova SV, Khitrina EV, Chetverin AB, Agol VI. Nonreplicative RNA recombination in poliovirus. J Virol. 1999;73(11):8958–8965. pmid:10516001 - 32.
Kearse MG, Wilusz JE. Non-AUG translation: a brand new begin for protein synthesis in eukaryotes. Genes Dev. 2017;31(17):1717–1731. pmid:28982758 - 33.
Inexperienced KM, Miller SL, Malik I, Todd PK. Non-canonical initiation elements modulate repeat-associated non-AUG translation. Hum Mol Genet. 2022;31 (15):2521–2534. pmid:35220421 - 34.
Komar AA, Merrick WC. A Retrospective on eIF2A-and Not the Alpha Subunit of eIF2. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(6):2054. pmid:32192132 - 35.
Wek RC. Function of eIF2alpha Kinases in Translational Management and Adaptation to Mobile Stress. Chilly Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2018;10(7):a032870. - 36.
Sanz MA, Gonzalez Almela E, Carrasco L. Translation of Sindbis Subgenomic mRNA is Impartial of eIF2, eIF2A and eIF2D. Sci Rep. 2017;7:43876. pmid:28240315 - 37.
Gonzalez-Almela E, Williams H, Sanz MA, Carrasco L. The Initiation Components eIF2, eIF2A, eIF2D, eIF4A, and eIF4G Are Not Concerned in Translation Pushed by Hepatitis C Virus IRES in Human Cells. Entrance Microbiol. 2018;9:207. pmid:29487587 - 38.
Novak JE, Kirkegaard Ok. Coupling between genome translation and replication in an RNA virus. Genes Dev. 1994;8(14):1726–1737. pmid:7958852 - 39.
Egger D, Teterina N, Ehrenfeld E, Bienz Ok. Formation of the poliovirus replication advanced requires coupled viral translation, vesicle manufacturing, and viral RNA synthesis. J Virol. 2000;74(14):6570–6580. pmid:10864671 - 40.
Ishii T, Shiroki Ok, Iwai A, Nomoto A. Identification of a brand new ingredient for RNA replication inside the inside ribosome entry web site of poliovirus RNA. J Gen Virol. 1999;80(Pt 4):917–920. pmid:10211960 - 41.
Banerjee S, Aponte-Diaz D, Yeager C, Sharma SD, Ning G, Oh HS, et al. Hijacking of a number of phospholipid biosynthetic pathways and induction of membrane biogenesis by a picornaviral 3CD protein. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(5):e1007086. pmid:29782554 - 42.
Nallagatla SR, Hwang J, Toroney R, Zheng X, Cameron CE, Bevilacqua PC. 5′-triphosphate-dependent activation of PKR by RNAs with brief stem-loops. Science. 2007;318(5855):1455–1458. pmid:18048689 - 43.
Sweeney TR, Abaeva IS, Pestova TV, Hellen CU. The mechanism of translation initiation on Kind 1 picornavirus IRESs. EMBO J. 2014;33(1):76–92. pmid:24357634 - 44.
Li X, Lu HH, Mueller S, Wimmer E. The C-terminal residues of poliovirus proteinase 2A(professional) are crucial for viral RNA replication however not for cis- or trans-proteolytic cleavage. J Gen Virol. 2001;82(Pt 2):397–408. pmid:11161279 - 45.
Ichihara Ok, Matsumoto A, Nishida H, Kito Y, Shimizu H, Shichino Y, et al. Combinatorial evaluation of translation dynamics reveals eIF2 dependence of translation initiation at near-cognate codons. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(13):7298–7317. pmid:34226921 - 46.
Kotecki M, Reddy PS, Cochran BH. Isolation and characterization of a near-haploid human cell line. Exp Cell Res. 1999;252(2):273–280. pmid:10527618 - 47.
Carette JE, Guimaraes CP, Varadarajan M, Park AS, Wuethrich I, Godarova A, et al. Haploid genetic screens in human cells establish host elements utilized by pathogens. Science. 2009;326(5957):1231–1235. pmid:19965467 - 48.
HAP1 knockout cell traces Accessible from: https://horizondiscovery.com/en/engineered-cell-lines/merchandise/human-hap1-knockout-cell-lines [ - 49.
Rehwinkel J, Reis e Sousa C. Targeting the viral Achilles’ heel: recognition of 5′-triphosphate RNA in innate anti-viral defence. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2013;16(4):485–492. pmid:23707340 - 50.
Guo F, Li S, Caglar MU, Mao Z, Liu W, Woodman A, et al. Single-Cell Virology: On-Chip Investigation of Viral Infection Dynamics. Cell Rep. 2017;21(6):1692–1704. pmid:29117571 - 51.
Liu W, Caglar MU, Mao Z, Woodman A, Arnold JJ, Wilke CO, et al. More than efficacy revealed by single-cell analysis of antiviral therapeutics. Sci Adv. 2019;5(10):eaax4761. pmid:31692968 - 52.
Gallei A, Pankraz A, Thiel HJ, Becher P. RNA recombination in vivo in the absence of viral replication. J Virol. 2004;78(12):6271–6281. pmid:15163720 - 53.
Kleine Büning M, Meyer D, Austermann-Busch S, Roman-Sosa G, Rümenapf T, Becher P. Nonreplicative RNA Recombination of an Animal Plus-Strand RNA Virus in the Absence of Efficient Translation of Viral Proteins. Genome Biol Evol. 2017;9(4):817–829. pmid:28338950 - 54.
Chetverin AB, Chetverina HV, Demidenko AA, Ugarov VI. Nonhomologous RNA recombination in a cell-free system: evidence for a transesterification mechanism guided by secondary structure. Cell. 1997;88(4):503–513. pmid:9038341 - 55.
Murray KE, Steil BP, Roberts AW, Barton DJ. Replication of poliovirus RNA with complete internal ribosome entry site deletions. J Virol. 2004;78(3):1393–1402. pmid:14722294 - 56.
Wimmer E, Nomoto A. Molecular biology and cell-free synthesis of poliovirus. Biologicals. 1993;21(4):349–356. pmid:8024750 - 57.
Herold J, Andino R. Poliovirus requires a precise 5′ end for efficient positive-strand RNA synthesis. J Virol. 2000;74(14):6394–6400. pmid:10864650 - 58.
Pichlmair A, Lassnig C, Eberle CA, Górna MW, Baumann CL, Burkard TR, et al. IFIT1 is an antiviral protein that recognizes 5′-triphosphate RNA. Nat Immunol. 2011;12(7):624–630. pmid:21642987 - 59.
Hornung V, Ellegast J, Kim S, Brzózka K, Jung A, Kato H, et al. 5′-Triphosphate RNA is the ligand for RIG-I. Science. 2006;314(5801):994–997. pmid:17038590 - 60.
Komar AA, Mazumder B, Merrick WC. A new framework for understanding IRES-mediated translation. Gene. 2012;502(2):75–86. pmid:22555019 - 61.
Martinez-Salas E, Pacheco A, Serrano P, Fernandez N. New insights into internal ribosome entry site elements relevant for viral gene expression. J Gen Virol. 2008;89(Pt 3):611–626. pmid:18272751 - 62.
White JP, Reineke LC, Lloyd RE. Poliovirus switches to an eIF2-independent mode of translation during infection. J Virol. 2011;85(17):8884–8893. pmid:21697471 - 63.
Choi SK, Lee JH, Zoll WL, Merrick WC, Dever TE. Promotion of met-tRNAiMet binding to ribosomes by yIF2, a bacterial IF2 homolog in yeast. Science. 1998;280(5370):1757–1760. pmid:9624054 - 64.
Pestova TV, de Breyne S, Pisarev AV, Abaeva IS, Hellen CU. eIF2-dependent and eIF2-independent modes of initiation on the CSFV IRES: a common role of domain II. EMBO J. 2008;27(7):1060–1072. pmid:18337746 - 65.
Dmitriev SE, Terenin IM, Andreev DE, Ivanov PA, Dunaevsky JE, Merrick WC, et al. GTP-independent tRNA delivery to the ribosomal P-site by a novel eukaryotic translation factor. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(35):26779–26787. pmid:20566627 - 66.
Skabkin MA, Skabkina OV, Dhote V, Komar AA, Hellen CU, Pestova TV. Activities of Ligatin and MCT-1/DENR in eukaryotic translation initiation and ribosomal recycling. Genes Dev. 2010;24(16):1787–1801. pmid:20713520 - 67.
Ventoso I, Sanz MA, Molina S, Berlanga JJ, Carrasco L, Esteban M. Translational resistance of late alphavirus mRNA to eIF2alpha phosphorylation: a strategy to overcome the antiviral effect of protein kinase PKR. Genes Dev. 2006;20(1):87–100. pmid:16391235 - 68.
Kim JH, Park SM, Park JH, Keum SJ, Jang SK. eIF2A mediates translation of hepatitis C viral mRNA under stress conditions. EMBO J. 2011;30(12):2454–2464. pmid:21556050 - 69.
Lloyd RE, Tamhankar M, Lernmark Å. Enteroviruses and Type 1 Diabetes: Multiple Mechanisms and Factors? Annu Rev Med. 2022;73:483–499. pmid:34794324 - 70.
Kim KS, Hufnagel G, Chapman NM, Tracy S. The group B coxsackieviruses and myocarditis. Rev Med Virol. 2001;11(6):355–368. pmid:11746998 - 71.
Bouin A, Gretteau PA, Wehbe M, Renois F, N’Guyen Y, Leveque N, et al. Enterovirus Persistence in Cardiac Cells of Patients With Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Is Linked to 5’ Terminal Genomic RNA-Deleted Viral Populations With Viral-Encoded Proteinase Activities. Circulation. 2019;139(20):2326–2338. pmid:30755025 - 72.
Castelló A, Alvarez E, Carrasco L. The multifaceted poliovirus 2A protease: regulation of gene expression by picornavirus proteases. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011;2011:369648. pmid:21541224 - 73.
Sun D, Chen S, Cheng A, Wang M. Roles of the Picornaviral 3C Proteinase in the Viral Life Cycle and Host Cells. Viruses. 2016;8(3):82. pmid:26999188 - 74.
Wang YF, Chou CT, Lei HY, Liu CC, Wang SM, Yan JJ, et al. A mouse-adapted enterovirus 71 strain causes neurological disease in mice after oral infection. J Virol. 2004;78(15):7916–7924. pmid:15254164 - 75.
Kim H, Ellis VD 3rd, Woodman A, Zhao Y, Arnold JJ, Cameron CE. RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase Speed and Fidelity are not the Only Determinants of the Mechanism or Efficiency of Recombination. Genes (Basel). 2019;10(12):968. pmid:31775299