4.6 Article

Divergent Evolution in Reverse Transcriptase (RT) of HIV-1 Group O and M Lineages: Impact on Structure, Fitness, and Sensitivity to Nonnucleoside RT Inhibitors

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 84, 期 19, 页码 9817-9830

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00991-10

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH [AI49170]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural evolution in primate lentiviral reverse transcriptase (RT) appears to have been constrained by the necessity to maintain function within an asymmetric protein composed of two identical primary amino acid sequences (66 kDa), of which one is cleaved (51 kDa). In this study, a detailed phylogenetic analysis now segregates groups O and M into clusters based on a cysteine or tyrosine residue located at position 181 of RT and linked to other signature residues. Divergent evolution of two group O (C181 or Y181) and the main (Y181 only) HIV-1 lineages did not appreciably impact RT activity or function. Group O RT structural models, based on group M subtype B RT crystal structures, revealed that most evolutionarily linked amino acids appear on a surface-exposed region of one subunit while in a noncatalytic RT pocket of the other subunit. This pocket binds nonnucleoside RT inhibitors (NNRTI); therefore, NNRTI sensitivity was used to probe enzyme differences in these group O and M lineages. In contrast to observations showing acquired drug resistance associated with fitness loss, the C181Y mutation in the C181 group O lineage resulted in a loss of intrinsic NNRTI resistance and was accompanied by fitness loss. Other mutations linked to the NNRTI-resistant C181 lineage also resulted in altered NNRTI sensitivity and a net fitness cost. Based on RT asymmetry and conservation of the intricate reverse transcription process, millions of years of divergent primate lentivirus evolution may be constrained to discrete mutations that appear primarily in the nonfunctional, solvent-accessible NNRTI binding pocket.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据