Temporal Regulation of Distinct Internal Ribosome Entry Sites of the Dicistroviridae Cricket Paralysis Virus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
viruses Article Temporal Regulation of Distinct Internal Ribosome Entry Sites of the Dicistroviridae Cricket Paralysis Virus Anthony Khong 1, Jennifer M. Bonderoff 1, Ruth V. Spriggs 2, Erik Tammpere 1, Craig H. Kerr 1, Thomas J. Jackson 2, Anne E. Willis 2 and Eric Jan 1,* Received: 3 December 2015; Accepted: 11 January 2016; Published: 19 January 2016 Academic Editor: Craig McCormick 1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada; [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (J.M.B.); [email protected] (E.T.); [email protected] (C.H.K.) 2 Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit, Leicester LE1 9HN, UK; [email protected] (R.V.S.); [email protected] (T.J.J.); [email protected] (A.E.W.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-604-827-4226 Abstract: Internal ribosome entry is a key mechanism for viral protein synthesis in a subset of RNA viruses. Cricket paralysis virus (CrPV), a member of Dicistroviridae, has a positive-sense single strand RNA genome that contains two internal ribosome entry sites (IRES), a 51untranslated region (51UTR) and intergenic region (IGR) IRES, that direct translation of open reading frames (ORF) encoding the viral non-structural and structural proteins, respectively. The regulation of and the significance of the CrPV IRESs during infection are not fully understood. In this study, using a series of biochemical assays including radioactive-pulse labelling, reporter RNA assays and ribosome profiling, we demonstrate that while 51UTR IRES translational activity is constant throughout infection, IGR IRES translation is delayed and then stimulated two to three hours post infection. The delay in IGR IRES translation is not affected by inhibiting global translation prematurely via treatment with Pateamine A. Using a CrPV replicon that uncouples viral translation and replication, we show that the increase in IGR IRES translation is dependent on expression of non-structural proteins and is greatly stimulated when replication is active. Temporal regulation by distinct IRESs within the CrPV genome is an effective viral strategy to ensure optimal timing and expression of viral proteins to facilitate infection. Keywords: virus; translation; IRES; ribosome; dicistrovirus 1. Introduction Viral protein synthesis is an essential process in all viral life cycles. As such, viruses have adapted diverse strategies to recruit the host ribosome and the translational machinery. Numerous positive strand RNA viruses use a strategy whereby infection leads to an inhibition of host translation concomitant with an increase in viral protein synthesis [1]. One of the best-studied examples of this switch from host to viral protein synthesis is during poliovirus infection: the translation factors eIF4G and poly A binding protein are cleaved by virally-encoded proteases thereby shutting off cap-dependent translation [2–4]. By contrast, the poliovirus internal ribosome entry site, IRES, recruits the ribosome using a subset of translation factors and IRES trans-acting factors (ITAFs) to direct cap-independent viral protein synthesis [5]. Therefore, the strategies that underlie the switch from host to viral protein synthesis such as the signalling pathways that target translation factors and the mechanisms that direct viral protein expression are fundamental to virus infection. Viruses 2016, 8, 25; doi:10.3390/v8010025 www.mdpi.com/journal/viruses Viruses 2016, 8, 25 2 of 20 Viruses 2016, 8, x 2 of 19 The Dicistroviridae family uses an interesting strategy for viral protein synthesis: the monopartite plus strandThe ~9Dicistroviridae kb RNA genome family containsuses an twointeresting IRESs, strate the 5gy1untranslated for viral protein region synthesis: (51UTR) andthe the intergenicmonopartite (IGR) plus IRES strand that ~9 direct kb RNA translation genome contains of two two open IRESs, reading the 5'untranslated frames (ORFs) region encoding (5'UTR) the non-structuraland the intergenic and structural (IGR) IRES proteins, that direct respectively translation (Figure of two 1openA) [ reading6]. Infection frames of (ORFs) Drosophila encoding S2 cells by thethe dicistrovirus non-structuralCricket and structural paralysis virusproteins,(CrPV) respecti resultsvely in(Figure the rapid 1A) [6]. shut Infection off of host of Drosophila protein synthesis S2 cells by the dicistrovirus Cricket paralysis virus (CrPV) results in the rapid shut off of host protein concomitant with preferential viral protein synthesis involving supramolar expression of the structural synthesis concomitant with preferential viral protein synthesis involving supramolar expression of proteins compared to the non-structural proteins [7–9]. The significance and the regulation of the CrPV the structural proteins compared to the non-structural proteins [7–9]. The significance and the IRESregulation translation of duringthe CrPV infection IRES translation have not during been infection examined have in detail.not been examined in detail. Figure 1. Viral non-structural and structural protein expression in CrPV-infected S2 cells. (A) Figure 1. Viral non-structural and structural protein expression in CrPV-infected S2 cells. (A) Schematic Schematic of the genome arrangement of CrPV; (B) Autoradiography of pulse-labelled protein of thelysates genome from arrangement S2 cells either of mock- CrPV; or (CrPV-infecteB) Autoradiographyd (MOI 10) ofresolved pulse-labelled on a 12% proteinSDS-PAGE lysates gel. The from S2 cells eitherprotein mock- lysates or were CrPV-infected collected from (MOI S2 10)cells resolved at the indicated on a 12% times SDS-PAGE hours post-infection gel. The protein (h.p.i.) lysates and were collectedmetabolically from S2 labelled cells at with the indicated[35S]-Met/Cys times for hourstwenty post-infectionminutes at the end (h.p.i.) of each and time metabolically point (top). The labelled withidentities [35S]-Met/Cys of specific for CrPV twenty viral minutes proteins, at as the shown end ofon eachthe right time of pointthe gel, (top). were Thepreviously identities described of specific CrPV[7,8] viral and proteins, determined as shown by immunoblotting on the right of with the α gel,-RdRp were and previously α-VP2 peptide described antibodies [7,8] or and predicted determined by by immunoblottingmolecular weight with α(below);-RdRp and(C) αRaw-VP2 densitometric peptide antibodies quantitation or predicted of [35S]-Met/Cys by molecular pulse-labelled weight (below); (C) RawRdRp*, densitometric RdRp**, RdRp***, quantitation 2C, VP0, of and [35 S]-Met/CysVP1, 2, and 3 pulse-labelledduring CrPV infection RdRp*, from RdRp**, three RdRp***, independent 2C, VP0, and VP1,experiments 2, and 3(±s.d.). during RdRp*, CrPV infectionRdRp**, and from RdRp*** three independent denote polyproteins experiments containing (˘s.d.). RdRp RdRp*, at the RdRp**, approximate sizes of 120 kDa, 105 kDa, and 100 kDa respectively. and RdRp*** denote polyproteins containing RdRp at the approximate sizes of 120 kDa, 105 kDa, and 100 kDa respectively. The 5'UTR- and IGR IRES can support translation in a number of translation systems both in vitro and in vivo, including in yeast, insect and mammalian extracts and cells [10–13]. The IGR IRES Thehas been 51UTR- studied and extensively IGR IRES can [14–19]; support the IGR translation IRES directly in a number recruits the of translation ribosome without systems the both aid ofin vitro and intranslation vivo, including initiation in factors yeast, and insect initiates and mammaliantranslation from extracts a non-AUG and cells codon [10 [14].–13 ].Biochemical The IGR IRESand has beenstructural studied extensivelystudies have revealed [14–19]; that the the IGR IGR IRES IRES directly adopts distinct recruits structural the ribosome domains without that enable the the aid of translationIRES to initiationoccupy the factors intersubunit and initiatescore of the translation ribosome in from order a to non-AUG gain access codon to the [ribosomal14]. Biochemical A and P and sites [15,16,20–23]. Indeed, the CrPV pseudoknot I domain of the IGR IRES structurally mimics the structural studies have revealed that the IGR IRES adopts distinct structural domains that enable the anticodon of a tRNA[15,22,23]. Recent cryo-EM studies have demonstrated that the PKI domain first IRES to occupy the intersubunit core of the ribosome in order to gain access to the ribosomal A and P sites [15,16,20–23]. Indeed, the CrPV pseudoknot I domain of the IGR IRES structurally mimics the anticodon of a tRNA [15,22,23]. Recent cryo-EM studies have demonstrated that the PKI domain first Viruses 2016, 8, 25 3 of 20 occupies the A site followed by translocation to the P site and thereby leaving the A site unoccupied for delivery of the initial aminoacyl-tRNA [22,23]. By contrast, studies on the mechanism of the 51UTR IRES have been limited [13,24]; using a reconstitution approach, Terenin et al. (2005) showed that eIF1, eIF2, and eIF3 are required for 51UTR IRES dependent translation of a related dicistrovirus Rhapdopsilum padi virus (RhPV) [24]. Differences in the mechanism of the CrPV 51UTR and IGR IRESs likely contribute to distinct expression levels of non-structural and structural proteins. Supporting this, 51UTR IRES translation is weaker than IGR IRES translation [9] and that IGR IRES translation is stimulated during CrPV infection using transfection approaches of reporter RNAs [25]. However, the significance of this strategy by dicistroviruses is not well understood. Many RNA viruses control