4.6 Article

APOBEC3A, APOBEC3B, and APOBEC3H Haplotype 2 Restrict Human T-Lymphotropic Virus Type 1

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 86, 期 11, 页码 6097-6108

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.06570-11

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIAID, the National Institutes of Health [AI089246]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft [MU 1608/4-1]
  3. Heinz Ansmann Foundation for AIDS research
  4. Jurgen Manchot Foundation, Molecules of Infection Graduate School

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The human APOBEC3 family consists of seven cytidine deaminases (A3A to A3H), some of which display potent antiretroviral activity against HIV-1 and other retroviruses. Studies that analyzed the effect of A3G on human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) infectivity resulted in conflicting findings, and our knowledge of HTLV-1 restriction by other A3 proteins remains limited. Since HTLV-1, much like HIV, targets CD4(+) T cells, we hypothesized that A3 proteins other than A3G restrict HTLV-1. All seven human A3 proteins were tested in HTLV-1 reporter and HIV-1 infectivity assays. We show that A3A, A3B, and A3H haplotype 2 (A3H hapII) acted as potent inhibitors of HTLV-1. Wild-type HIV-1, in contrast, was restricted by A3B and A3H hapII, but not by A3A. Catalytic site mutants of A3A, A3B, and A3H hapII showed that A3A and A3B restriction of HTLV-1 required deaminase activity. However, A3H hapII acted in a deaminase-independent manner when restricting HTLV-1, while requiring deaminase activity for HIV-1 restriction. We also analyzed A3 editing of HTLV-1 in five T-cell lines obtained from HTLV-1-infected patients. These cell lines contained extensively edited HTLV-1 sequences with G-to-A mutations in dinucleotide contexts suggestive of APOBEC3 mutagenesis. Comparison of the A3-induced mutations from reporter cells and the patient-derived cell lines indicate that A3G but also other A3 members, possibly A3A and A3B, affect HTLV-1 in vivo. Taken together, our data indicate that HTLV-1 is a likely target for multiple A3 proteins.

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