4.0 Article

High-Affinity Binding of Southern African HIV Type 1 Subtype C Envelope Protein, gp120, to the CCR5 Coreceptor

Journal

AIDS RESEARCH AND HUMAN RETROVIRUSES
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages 1527-1536

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/aid.2008.0105

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

HIV-1 subtype C is the fastest spreading subtype worldwide and predominantly uses the CCR5 coreceptor, showing minimal transition to the X4 phenotype. This raises the possibility that envelope proteins of HIV-1 subtype C have structural features that favor interaction with CCR5. Preference for CCR5 could arise from enhanced affinity of HIV-1 subtype C for CCR5. To test this, we have characterized the interaction of gp120 envelope proteins from HIV-1 subtype C clones with CD4 and CCR5. Recombinant gp120 proteins from isolates of HIV-1 subtypes B and C were expressed, purified, and assessed in a CD4 binding assay and a CCR5 chemokine competition binding assay. All gp120 proteins bound to CD4-expressing cells, except one, 97ZA347ts, which had Arg substituted for the Cys239 in the conserved C2 loop. Reconstitution of Cys239, using site-directed mutagenesis, restored CD4 binding, while introducing Arg or Ser into position 239 of the functional Du151 gp120 protein abrogated CD4 binding. This shows that the Cys228-Cys239 disulfide bond of gp120 is required for high-affinity binding to CD4. Recombinant gp120 proteins from two HIV-1 subtype B clones bound CCR5 in the presence of CD4, while gp120 from the X4-tropic, HxB2, clone did not bind CCR5. gp120 from two functional HIV-1 subtype C clones, Du151 and MOLE1, bound CCR5 with high affinity in the presence of CD4 and Du151 showed significant CCR5 binding in the absence of CD4. A gp120 from a nonfunctional subtype C clone had lower affinity for CCR5. These results indicate that HIV-1 subtype C proteins have high affinity for CCR5 with variable dependence on CD4.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available