1 / 35

Marburg Virus Evades Interferon Responses by a Mechanism Distinct from Ebola Virus

Marburg Virus Evades Interferon Responses by a Mechanism Distinct from Ebola Virus. By Sue Abbasi and Amy Turner. Emergence of Marburg . August of 1967

ronald
Download Presentation

Marburg Virus Evades Interferon Responses by a Mechanism Distinct from Ebola Virus

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Marburg Virus Evades Interferon Responses by a Mechanism Distinct from Ebola Virus By Sue Abbasi and Amy Turner

  2. Emergence of Marburg August of 1967 In Marburg, Germany, 3 laboratory workers became ill with a hemorrhagic disease after processing organs from African Green Monkeys. Total of 32 cases of whom 7 died.

  3. Ebola Virus 1976 A related virus emerged. It received its name from the Ebola river. In Zaire (now Congo) and Sudan 2 distinct Ebola virus, Sudan ebolavirus (SEBOV) and Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV) In 1994, the third Ebola virus species originates. In Cote d’Ivoreebolavirus (CIEBOV). 1994-2005

  4. Symptoms It causes severe viral hemorrhagic fever. The symptoms are internal bleeding, liver damage and dysfunction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and shock.

  5. Filovirus Structure . Marburg and Ebola viruses have enveloped virions 80 nm in diameter and of varying lengths. They have filamentous particles between 800 and 1200 nm long. The virions contain a negative-sense, single stranded RNA genome 19 kb long, wrapped in a helical nucleocapsid. .

  6. The Structure of Marburg and Ebola These viruses contain 7 genes. The gene coding for the nucleocapsid protein (NP) is located closest to the 3’ end of the genome The gene coding for the RNA polymerase (L) is located closet to the 5’ end.

  7. NP- VP35- VP30- VP24-membrane protein. It is a interferon signaling antagonist. L Protein- VP40- Associates with membranes and resembles matrix protein. Also directs budding of virus envelopes at the plasma membrane to form virions. GP-

  8. The Study This study shows that MARV and EBOV inhibit IFN-α/β signaling but utilize different pathways. Differences- Transcriptions strategies The structure of their replication promoters The use of mRNA editing to express the surface glycoprotein by EBOV

  9. IFN α/β and y IFN alpha and IFN gamma- antiviral cytokines IFNα/β - Trigger innate antiviral defense mechanism and promote adaptive immunity. IFNy-modulate adaptive immune response. Both signaling results in tyrosine phosphorylation and activation of Janus kinases JAK1 and Tyk2. -pSTAT2 and pSTAT1 heterodimerize and associate with interferon regulatory factor (IRF9) to form a complex that is translocated to the nucleus to activate genes involved in antiviral response. IFNy signaling activates JAK1 and 2, resulting in tyrosine phosphorylation of STAT1. Homodimerization and translocation to the nucleus. Gene expression is induced.

  10. MARV VIRUS BLOCKS THROUGH The JAK/STAT PATHWAYMARV blocks the phosphorylation of Janus Kinases and their target STAT proteins in response to type I and type II interferon and interleukin 6.

  11. THE EBOV VIRUS BLOCKS IFN SIGNALING EBOV inhibits IFN signaling through its EBOV VP24 protein which blocks the nuclear accumulation of tyrosine phosphorylated STAT1. MARV inhibits IFN α/β- induced tyrosine phosphorylation of STAT1 and 2 by MARV VP40. MARV also inhibits IFNγ-induced STAT phosphorylation and tyrosine phosphorylation of upstream JAK by VP40.

  12. Figure 1 MARV Infection prevents IFN-mediated phosphorylation and Nuclear translocation of STAT proteins Huh-7 cells were infected with MARV or ZEBOV . Then at 24 hours, cells were treated with IFN-α or IFN-γ. Western Blotting using antibodies against STAT 1 or STAT 2. Goal; To demonstrate that tyrosine phosphorylation of STAT1 and STAT2 is reduced in MARV but not in ZEBOV. Results; MARV virus interferes with an early step of JAK/STAT

  13. FIGURE 1C Goal; Immunofluorescence is used to determine the cellular localization of STAT. Results; EBOV and MARV both inhibit nuclear translocation of STAT1.

  14. MARV Infection prevents IFN-mediated phosphorylation and Nuclear translocation of STAT proteins I;;;;;

  15. FIGURE 2 IFNα-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of Janus kinases is inhibited in MARV- but not in EBOV-infected cells . • Huh -7 cells were used the same way then treated with IFN-α. Western Blotting was used. • Goal; To see the effect of JAK 1 and TYK2. • Results; Inhibition of JAK STAT signaling pathway by MARV takes place upstream of p-JAK.

  16. FIGURE 2B Huh-7 cells were treated at different times with IFN-α to determine the activation of STAT 1 and TYK2. GOAL; To discover at which time point does the MARV replication cycle occur. Result; It occurs at 4h The binding of MARV to its receptor does not trigger the IFN antagonist function

  17. Figure C MARV-infected and IFN-treated cells were treated with different PTPs; SO, PTP1B and DMSO. PTP1B- dephosphorylates Tyk2 and Jak2, SO-It inhibits multiple phosphatases Goal; To determine whether MARV inhibits JAK1 phosphorylation through protein tyrosine phosphatases. Results; MARV inhibits p-Tyk2 therefore, inhibitory effects do not depend on active cellular PTPs.

  18. Figure 3 Vero cells were transfected with plasmids then the cells were mock treated or with IFNB and cells were infected with New Castle Disease Virus-NDV-GFP. This is IFN sensitive. GFP (green fluorescent protein) is used to determine where the gene is expressed. Control-pCAGGS Nipah Virus W Protein (known inhibitors of IFN signaling) ZEBOV VP24 (known inhibitors of IFN signaling) ZEBOV VP40 MARV VP24 MARV VP30 MARV VP35 MARV VP40 MARV NP

  19. Figure 3. MARV VP40 acts as an IFN antagonist Results; The only MARV protein tested that permitted the NDV-GFP replication in IFNB treated cells was MARV VP40 Goal; To identify the viral protein mediating the antagonistic effects observed in MARV infected cells. EBOV and MARV proteins where assessed for their capacity to counteract the antiviral effects of IFN B

  20. Figure 3B Huh-7 cells were transfected with different plasmids of viral proteins from rabies virus, ZEBOV, and MARV. After 24 hrs, they were stimulated with IFN alpha and Beta and stained with anti-STAT2 antibodies. Rabies virus phosphoprotein blocks the nuclear translocation of STAT2 into the nucleus.+Control Empty Vector is the –control Goals; To confirm that MARV VP40 antagonizes IFN signaling through intracellular distribution of STAT2 in cells. Results; MARV VP40 and ZEBOV VP24 led to inhibition of STAT2 accumulation in the nucleus. MARV VP40 is the viral protein interfering with IFN signaling.

  21. Figure 4 STAT1 or STAT2 fused to a C-terminal GFP in Huh-7 cells of different plasmids and treated IFNα/β . Cells were lysed and assayed by western blot for tyrosine phosphorylated STAT1 (p-STAT1-GFP), STAT2 (p-STAT2-GFP) and overexpressed proteins. Langat virus NS5 protein has demonstrated in the past that inhibits STAT1 and 2. It served as a control.

  22. MARV VP40 inhibits IFN-induced STAT and Jak phosphorylation • Goals; Assess the impact of MARV VP40 on IFN induced signaling in the absence of other viral proteins. • Results; MARV VP40 inhibited p-STAT1 and p-STAT2.

  23. Figure 4B Results; MARV VP40 led to a reduction in IFNy induced STAT1 tyrosine Phosphorylation.

  24. Figure 4C • 293T cells were transfected with different plasmids and then treated with IFNα/β or IFNγ. • Western blot analysis • Goal; What is the impact of MARV VP40 on the phosphorylation of Janus Kinases. • Results; MARV VP40 inhibits both kinases. This shows that MARV VP40 uses a different mechanism than EBOV to block IFN signaling.

  25. MARV VP40 inhibits ISRE- and GAS-induced gene expression What is the functional significance of the observed inhibition? Methods Used a reporter gene assay to determine the impact of MARV VP40 on IFNβ and IFNγ-induced transcription CAT gene 293 T cells used for transfection MARV VP24 and ZEBOV VP24 were used as controls ISG54 promoter (IFNα/β) contains an interferon stimulated response element (ISRE) GAS element (three gamma activated sequence elements) activated by IFNγ

  26. MARV VP40 inhibits ISRE- and GAS-induced gene expression

  27. Assess the impact of MARV VP40 upon IFNγ-induced production of IP-10 IP-10 is an immune cell chemoattractant protein secreted by several cell types in response to IFNγ Methods HUVECs were transfected with expression plasmids, treated with IFNγ and cell supernatants were tested for the presence of IP-10 by ELISA

  28. How specific is this effect? Method Similar assay performed testing the impact of viral protein expression on TNFα-induced secretion of IL-8 which is mediated by the NF-κB signaling pathway Conclusion MARV VP40 is specific for Jak-STAT signaling and does not have an effect on the induction of NF-κB-mediated signaling

  29. IL-6-induced activation of STAT1 and STAT3 Analyzing the effect that MARV VP40 has on IL-6-induced phosphorylation of STAT1 and STAT3 Why IL-6? Because in Jak1- cells, p-STAT1 and p-STAT3 as induced by IL-6 were greatly absent or reduced (respectively) IL-6 signaling pathway is a non-IFN, Jak-STAT signaling pathway

  30. Does MARV VP40 inhibit phosphorylation of over-expressed Jak1? Over-expression of Janus kinases leads to their tyrosine phosphorylation and to the phosphorylation of STAT proteins First: determine the phosphorylation state of HA-Jak1 and STAT2-GFP in transfected cells

  31. Over-expression of HA-Jak1 led to tyrosine phosphorylation of endogenous STAT1 and STAT3 (Lane 2) This phosphorylation was inhibited only by MARV VP40

  32. Is the same result seen with over-expression of HA-Tyk2? No inhibition of tyrosine phosphorylation of over-expressed HA-Tyk2 or subsequent STAT2-GFP phosphorylation by ANY of the filoviral proteins

  33. Is the late domain of MARV VP40 critical for inhibition of signaling? MARV VP40’s late domain (PPPY) Positioned residues 16-19 Mediates VP40 interaction with the cellular protein Tsg101 Contributes to its budding function Methods PPPY motif was mutated to AAAA (M40-AAAA) Looked For Budding (VLPs) Ability to suppress IFNα/β-induced signaling via STAT1 phosphorylation Transcription of the ISG54 promoter

More Related