Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Nov 2;282(44):32208-21.
doi: 10.1074/jbc.M704870200. Epub 2007 Aug 30.

Regulation of IRF-3-dependent innate immunity by the papain-like protease domain of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus

Santhana G Devaraj  1 , Nan Wang, Zhongbin Chen, Zihong Chen, Monica Tseng, Naina Barretto, Rongtuan Lin, Clarence J Peters, Chien-Te K Tseng, Susan C Baker, Kui Li
Affiliations

Regulation of IRF-3-dependent innate immunity by the papain-like protease domain of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus

Santhana G Devaraj et al. J Biol Chem. .

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) is a novel coronavirus that causes a highly contagious respiratory disease, SARS, with significant mortality. Although factors contributing to the highly pathogenic nature of SARS-CoV remain poorly understood, it has been reported that SARS-CoV infection does not induce type I interferons (IFNs) in cell culture. However, it is uncertain whether SARS-CoV evades host detection or has evolved mechanisms to counteract innate host defenses. We show here that infection of SARS-CoV triggers a weak IFN response in cultured human lung/bronchial epithelial cells without inducing the phosphorylation of IFN-regulatory factor 3 (IRF-3), a latent cellular transcription factor that is pivotal for type I IFN synthesis. Furthermore, SARS-CoV infection blocked the induction of IFN antiviral activity and the up-regulation of protein expression of a subset of IFN-stimulated genes triggered by double-stranded RNA or an unrelated paramyxovirus. In searching for a SARS-CoV protein capable of counteracting innate immunity, we identified the papain-like protease (PLpro) domain as a potent IFN antagonist. The inhibition of the IFN response does not require the protease activity of PLpro. Rather, PLpro interacts with IRF-3 and inhibits the phosphorylation and nuclear translocation of IRF-3, thereby disrupting the activation of type I IFN responses through either Toll-like receptor 3 or retinoic acid-inducible gene I/melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 pathways. Our data suggest that regulation of IRF-3-dependent innate antiviral defenses by PLpro may contribute to the establishment of SARS-CoV infection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 9
FIGURE 9
The IRF-3 pathway regulates SARS-CoV replication in cell culture.A, Huh7 DN-18 cells with tet-regulated, conditional expression of a dominant negative form of IRF-3 (DN IRF-3) were cultured in the presence or absence of tet for 3 days, to repress or induce DN IRF-3 expression, respectively, and were subsequently mock-infected or challenged with SeV for 12 h. Expression of IRF-3, ISG56, SeV, and actin proteins were detected in cell lysates by immunoblot analysis. The endogenous IRF-3 (FL) and the DN IRF-3 (DN) bands were marked as filled and empty circles, respectively. The asterisk in the ISG56 panel denotes a nonspecific band. B, Huh7 DN-18 cells repressed or induced for DN IRF-3 expression were infected with SARS-CoV at an m.o.i. of 0.01 at 37 °C for 1 h. The virus inoculum was then removed, and cells were washed extensively and refed with complete medium. Cell-free culture supernatants were collected at the indicated times postinfection and stored at -80 °C until they were subjected to assessment of infectious viral titers using a standard TCID50 assay in Vero E6 cells, as described under “Experimental Procedures.” The experiments were terminated at day 3 postinfection as CPE was observed in ∼30 and ∼70% of infected cells without and with DN IRF-3 expression, respectively. The growth curve of SARS-CoV shown was representative of three independently conducted experiments.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
SARS-CoV weakly activates an IFN response without inducing the hyperphosphorylation of IRF-3.A, human lung/bronchial epithelial Calu-3 cells were mock-infected or infected with 100 HAU/ml SeV (left panels) or SARS-CoV (right panels) at an m.o.i. of 5 for the indicated times prior to cell lysis and immunoblot analysis of IRF-3, ISG56, and SARS-CoV nucleocapsid (NC) protein. B, left panels show African green monkey kidney MA104 cells that were mock-infected or infected with SeV (100 HAU/ml) or with SARS-CoV (m.o.i. = 10) for the indicated times prior to cell lysis and immunoblot analysis of phospho-Ser396 IRF-3, total IRF-3, MxA, ISG56, SARS-CoV NC, and SeV proteins. A nonspecific band (*) detected by the anti-ISG56 antibody indicates equal loading. The arrowhead and hatch marks in the total IRF-3 panel denote phosphorylated (virus-activated) and inactive IRF-3 forms, respectively. In the right panel, MA104 cells grown in 35-mm dishes were mock-treated, infected with SARS-CoV (m.o.i. = 10) for 20 or 30 h, or transfected with 5 μg of poly(I-C) for 10 h prior to total RNA extraction and real time RT-PCR analysis of IFN-β mRNA abundance, which was subsequently normalized to cellular 18 S ribosomal RNA. Bars show fold change in IFN-β mRNA levels (relative to mock-treated cells).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
SARS-CoV PLpro domain inhibits activation of IFN-β promoter following engagement of TLR3 or RIG-I pathways independent of its protease activity.A, HEK293-TLR3 cells were co-transfected with pIFN-β-Luc and pCMVβgal plasmids and a vector (Vect) encoding SARS PLpro-Sol (Sol) or SARS PLpro-TM (TM), bovine viral diarrhea virus Npro, or A20, or an empty vector. Twenty four hours later, cells were either mock-treated (empty bars) or incubated with 50 μg/ml poly(I-C) in culture medium for 6 h (hatched bars, left panel), or infected with SeV at 100 HAU/ml for 16 h (solid bars, right panel) prior to cell lysis for both luciferase and β-galactosidase assays. Bars show relative luciferase activity normalized to β-galactosidase activity, i.e. IFN-β promoter activity. B and C, IFN-β promoter activity in cells transfected with increasing amounts of WT or C1651A mutant PLpro-TM-expressing plasmid (B) or equivalent amounts of WT or D1826A mutant PLpro-TM plasmid (C). D and E, IFN-β promoter activity in cells transfected with increasing amounts of WT or C1651A mutant PLpro-Sol-expressing plasmid (D) or equivalent amounts of WT, C1651A, or D1826A mutant PLpro Sol plasmids (E).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
SARS-CoV PLpro inhibits activation of IRF-3-dependent promoters by acting at a level downstream of the IRF-3 kinases and proximal to IRF-3.A, activation of p55C1B, an IRF-3-dependent synthetic promoter, by medium poly(I-C) (hatched bars) or SeV infection (solid bars) in HEK293-TLR3 cells with expression of SARS-CoV PLpro-TM (TM) or a control vector (Vect). B and C, activation of IFN-β (B) and p55C1B (C) promoters by ectopic expression of various signaling molecules within TLR3 and RIG-I/MDA5 pathways at or above the level of IRF-3 in HEK293 cells with (solid bars) or without (empty bars) expression of SARS-CoV PLpro-TM. N-RIG and N-MDA5 denote the caspase recruitment domain of RIG-I and MDA5, respectively.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Conditional expression of SARS-CoV PLpro-TM disrupts endogenous, IRF-3-dependent gene expression following dsRNA stimulation or SeV infection.A, immunofluorescence staining of PLpro-TM in HeLa PLpro-4 cells cultured in the presence (left) or absence (right) of 2 μg/ml tetracycline for 3 days followed by confocal microscopy. PLpro-TM showed green fluorescence staining (detected with a V5 tag antibody), whereas nuclei were counterstained blue with DAPI. B, left panels show HeLa PLpro-4 and PLpro-10 cells that were cultured with and without tetracycline for 3 days and subsequently mock-infected or challenged with SeV for 16 h prior to cell lysis and immunoblot blot analysis of PLpro (using a V5 tag antibody), ISG56, actin, and SeV. The right panels show HeLa PLpro-4 cells that were cultured in the indicated concentrations of tetracycline for 3 days prior to mock infection (lanes 9-13) or infection of SeV (lanes 14-17) for 16 h. Expression of PLpro-TM, ISG56, and actin were determined by immunoblot analysis. C, real time RT-PCR analysis of IFN-β (left), A20 (middle), and IL-6 (right) mRNA transcripts in HeLa PLpro-4 cells repressed or induced for PLpro-TM expression, and mock-treated (empty bars), treated with 50 μg/ml poly(I-C) in culture medium (hatched bars), or infected with SeV (solid bars) for 16 h. mRNA abundance was normalized to cellular 18 S ribosomal RNA. Fold changes were calculated by dividing the normalized mRNA abundance under various treatment conditions by that of the mock-treated cells without PLpro expression.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
SARS-CoV PLpro inhibits virus-induced IRF-3 phosphorylation, dimerization, and nuclear translocation.A, HeLa PLpro-4 cells were manipulated to repress or induce PLpro-TM expression for 3 days and were subsequently mock-treated or incubated with 50 μg/ml poly(I-C) in culture medium for 6 h or challenged with SeV for 16 h. Cell lysates were separated on native PAGE followed by immunoblot analysis to detect IRF-3 monomer and dimer forms (top panel, empty arrowhead indicates IRF-3 dimer), or subjected to SDS-PAGE and immunoblot analysis of IRF-3, ISG56, PLpro, SeV, and actin (lower panels). B, HeLa PLpro-4 cells were cultured to repress or induce PLpro-TM expression and subsequently mock-infected or infected with SeV for 16 h. Where indicated, cells were incubated with 0.05 μg/ml of OA for the last 4 h of SeV infection/mock infection. Cells were then harvested for immunoblot analysis of IRF-3, p396-IRF3, PLpro (anti-V5), and SeV. Asterisk denotes a nonspecific band. C, lanes 1-4, HeLa cells were mock-infected or infected with SeV for 16 h. Where indicated, OA was included in the last 4-h duration of infection/mock infection. Lanes 5-8, cell lysates of HeLa cells infected with SeV were mock-treated, treated with CIP, OA, or CIP in the presence of OA, as indicated under “Experimental Procedures.” IRF-3 and p396-IRF3 were detected by immunoblot analysis. Asterisk denotes a nonspecific band. D, immunofluorescence staining of IRF-3 subcellular localization in HeLa PLpro-4 cells repressed (upper panels) or induced (lower panels) for PLpro-TM expression and mock-infected (left) or infected (right) with SenV for 16 h. Numbers in SeV-infected cells were the averages of the percentage of cells that had IRF-3 nuclear translocation and were counted from 10 random fields (×40 magnification). E, HeLa PLpro-4 cells were cultured to repress or induce PLpro-TM expression and subsequently mock-infected or infected with SeV. Cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with a rabbit anti-CBP antibody (upper panels) or with a rabbit anti-IRF-3 antiserum (lower panels). The immunoprecipitates were separated on SDS-PAGE, followed by immunoblot (IB) analysis of IRF-3 (using an mAb anti-IRF-3) or CBP (using a rabbit anti-CBP antibody).
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
SARS-CoV PLpro interacts with IRF-3.A, HeLa PLpro-4 cells were cultured to repress or induce PLpro-TM expression and subsequently mock-infected or infected with SeV for 16 h. Left panels, expression of p396-IRF-3, total IRF-3, PLpro, and actin proteins in cell lysates were determined by immunoblot (IB) analysis. Right panels, cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with a rabbit anti-IRF-3 antibody (lanes 1-4) or a control rabbit serum (lanes 5-8). The immunoprecipitates were separated on SDS-PAGE, followed by immunoblot analysis of IRF-3 (using an mAb anti-IRF-3) and PLpro (using an mAb anti-V5 tag). B, HEK293 cells were transfected with WT (lanes 1-3), C1651A (lanes 4-6), or D1826A (lanes 7-9) PLpro-TM, respectively, and, where indicated, with an empty vector (lanes 1, 4, and 7), or a vector expressing FLAG-IRF-3 (lanes 2, 5, and 8) or untagged IRF-3 (lanes 3, 6, and 9). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-V5 (PLpro-TM), followed by immunodetection of FLAG-IRF-3 (anti-FLAG) or PLpro-TM (anti-V5) (right panels). Asterisk denotes IgG heavy chain. Immunoblot analysis of input for FLAG-IRF-3 and PLpro-TM is shown in left panels. All three forms of PLpro-TM interacted with IRF-3. C, HEK293 cells were transfected with WT (lanes 1 and 2), C1651A (lanes 3 and 4), or D1826A (lanes 5 and 6) PLpro-Sol, respectively, and, where indicated, with an empty vector (lanes 1, 3, and 5) or a vector expressing FLAG-IRF-3 (lanes 2, 4, and 6). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-V5 (PLpro-Sol), followed by immunodetection of FLAG-IRF-3 (anti-FLAG) or PLpro-Sol (anti-V5) (lower panels). Immunoblot analysis of input for FLAG-IRF-3 and PLpro-Sol is shown in upper panels. Note that WT and D1826A PLpro-Sol interacted with IRF-3, whereas C1651A PLpro-Sol did not. D, HeLa PLpro-4 cells induced for PLpro-TM expression were transfected with GFP, GFP-IRF-3, or GFP-IRF3-5D, respectively. Cell lysates were subjected to co-IP experiments using either GFP antibody or V5 antibody for immunoprecipitation, followed by immunoblot analysis of the immunoprecipitates using anti-GFP or anti-V5 antibodies. Note that both GFP-IRF3 and GFP-IRF3-5D were associated with PLpro-TM (detected by anti-V5), whereas free GFP was not.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
SARS-CoV nsp3 is associated with IRF-3 in cells infected with SARS-CoV. MA104 cells were mock-infected (lane 1), infected with SeV for 10 h (lane 2), infected with SARS-CoV (m.o.i. = 10) for 18 and 28 h (lanes 3 and 4), respectively, or infected with SARS-CoV for 18 h and then superinfected with SeV for an additional 10 h (lane 5). Expression of IRF-3, RIG-I, MxA, ISG56, SARS-CoV NC, and nsp3, and SeV proteins in cell lysates was determined by immunoblot (IB) analysis (upper panels). A nonspecific band detected by the rabbit anti-MxA antiserum (bottom panel) indicates equal loading. Data shown are representative of three independently conducted experiments. In lower panels, the cell lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with a rabbit anti-IRF3 antiserum, followed by immunoblot analysis of SARS-CoV nsp3, and IRF-3 (using an mAb anti-IRF3 antibody). Data shown are representative of two independently conducted experiments.
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Regulation of IFN responses in cells infected with SARS-CoV.A, MA104 cells were mock-infected (lanes 1-3) or infected with SARS-CoV (m.o.i. = 10) for 18 h (lanes 4-6), followed by mock treatment (lanes 2 and 4), transfection of poly(I-C) (lanes 1 and 6), or superinfection of SeV (lanes 3 and 5) for 10 h, respectively (a total of 28 h after mock or SARS-CoV infection under these conditions). Immunoblot analysis of cell lysates for expression of ISG56, IRF-3, SeV, and actin is shown. Asterisks in ISG56 panels denote a nonspecific band. B, MA104 cells were mock-infected, infected with SeV for 10 h, infected with SARS-CoV (m.o.i. = 10) for 18 or 28 h, or transfected with poly(I-C) for 10 h, respectively, or pre-infected with SARS-CoV for 18 h and then superinfected with SeV or transfected with poly(I-C) for additional 10 h (a total of 28 h after SARS-CoV infection under these conditions). Cell-free culture supernatants were collected, irradiated, and subjected to IFN bioactivity assay against vesicular stomatitis virus as described under “Experimental Procedures.” Bars indicate IFN bioactivity (units/ml) in culture supernatants under the indicated conditions. C, MA104 cells were mock-infected, infected with SeV for 8 h, infected with SARS-CoV (m.o.i. = 10) for 16 or 24 h, or pre-infected with SARS-CoV for 16 h and then superinfected with SeV for additional 8 h. Cells were harvested for total RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis, and subsequent real time RT-PCR detection of IFN-β mRNA. Data shown are representative of two independently conducted experiments.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Sen G.C. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2001;55:255–281. - PubMed
    1. Goutagny N., Kim M., Fitzgerald K.A. Nat. Immunol. 2006;7:555–557. - PubMed
    1. Stetson D.B., Kim R. Immunity. 2006;25:373–381. - PubMed
    1. Garcia-Sastre A., Kim C.A. Science. 2006;312:879–882. - PubMed
    1. Kawai T., Kim S. Nat. Immunol. 2006;7:131–137. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

-