| Literature DB >> 23418453 |
Xiaozhen Zhang1, Marybeth Daucher, David Armistead, Rodney Russell, Shyam Kottilil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Increasing evidence suggests that miRNAs have a profound impact on host defense to Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and clinical outcome of standard HCV therapy. In this study, we investigated modulation of miRNA expression in Huh7.5 hepatoma cells by HCV infection and in vitro interferon-αtreatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23418453 PMCID: PMC3572124 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055733
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1MiRNA expression and validation in HCV-infected Huh7.5 cells.
(A) Heat map of differentially expressed miRNAs in uninfected and HCV-infected Huh7.5 cells using a continuous HCV culture system. Red indicates up-regulation of expression and green indicates down-regulation of expression. Seven miRNAs were down-regulated in HCV infection (p value <0.05). (B) Quantitative RTPCR (q-RTPCR) validation of differentially expressed miRNAs. (C) Specific fold change (FC) values in differentially expressed miRNAs in HCV infected Huh7.5 cells ranked by p-value.
Figure 2Impact of miRNA function on HCV replication in Huh7.5 cells.
Five synthetic inhibitors (Ant-MiRs) for differentially regulated miRNAs and the miRNA inhibitor controls with no specific targets were transfected into naïve Huh7.5 cells then infected with HCV and analyzed for HCV replication. A Mann-Whitney test of multiple comparisons confirmed a significant increase in HCV RNA for Ant-miR-30c and significant decrease in HCV RNA for miR-130a. (*) P≤0.05.
Figure 3MiRNA expression and validation in HCV-infected Huh7.5 cells treated with IFN-α.
(A) Heat map of differentially expressed in uninfected, HCV-infected, and HCV-infected with IFN-α, Huh7.5 cells. Twelve miRNAs were differentially expressed in response to IFN-α at a p value ≤0.01. (B) Q-RTPCR validation of 7 of the 12 differentially regulated miRNAs. (C) Specific fold changes in differentially expressed miRNAs ranked by p- value.
Biological pathways targeted by miRNAs differentially expressed in HCV infection and following IFN-α treatment.
| MiRNA | Biological Pathway | P value <0.05 | Genes | Fold Enrichment | Benjamini | FDR |
|
| Ubiquitin mediated proteolysis | 3.20E-03 | SOCS3, UBE2G1,SOCS1, UBE2J1, BIRC6,HERC3, UBE21, UBE3C, MID1, UBE2R2, CUL2,UBE20, UBE2D3, CBLB, UBE2D2, NEDD4,UBE2K, WWP1, NEDD4L | 2.12 | 1.14E-01 | 3.76 |
| Regulation of actin cytoskeleton | 6.33E-03 | GNA13, ENAH, SSH2, AB12, ITGB3, PXN,PFN2, KRAS, SOS1, PPP1R12A, PIK3R2,VAV3, ARHGEF6, PIK3CD, ACTN1,ITGA4, VAV2, CRKL,ITGA6, ITGA5,CFL2, PDGFRB, PIP4K2A, MYH10, PIP4K2B | 1.78 | 1.48E-01 | 7.31 | |
|
| Endocytosis | 2.94E-06 | RAB5B, LDLR, ERBB4, CHMP4B, ERBB3,VPS37A, VPS37B, KIT, CLTC, ZFYVE20,ACVR1C, GIT2, HSPA8, RAB4A, TGFBR1,TGFBR2, MET, PSD3, EPS15, PSD, RAB5A,VPS24, PDGFRA, RNF31, DNM2 | 2.93 | 4.00E-04 | 0.00 |
| TGF-β signaling pathway | 8.02E-06 | TNF, ROCK2, TGFBR1, SMAD5, TGFBR2,SMAD4, BMPR2, SMAD2, SKP1, ACVR1C,INHBB, MAPK1, SP1, ZFYVE9, BMPR1B,ACVR1 | 3.96 | 5.45E-04 | 0.01 | |
| Purine metabolism | 7.24E-06 | ADCY3, ENPP1, PNPT1, PDE11A, POLR1C, PDE3A, PDE4D, GUCY2C, HPRT1, ADA, NME7, PFAS, PDE1B, PKM2, PKLR, PDE4B, RRM1, NT5C2, ADSL, PRPS1L1 | 3.29 | 1.09E-03 | 0.01 |
FDR = False Discovery Rate.
Figure 4Expression of mRNA targets of miR-130a/301 in HCV-infected Huh7.5 treated with IFN-α.
The top seven highly predicted mRNAs of gene targets for miR-130a/301 found in the endocytosis pathway (A) and TGF-β signaling pathways (B) were tested for expression using real-time quantitative RT-PCR and HCV-infected Huh7.5 cells without IFN-α (HCV effect) and with IFN-α (HCV+ IFN effect). The fold change in gene expression is normalized to GAPDH.
Location of putative miR-30c binding sites in the 3′ UTR of target mRNAs.
| Ubiquitin-Mediated Proteolysis | ||||
| mRNA-miRNA Pair | Predicted pairing of target and miRNA | Position in 3′ UTR | Seed Match | PCT |
|
| 5′ CUUGUUUUUUAAUAA | 1425–1432 | 8 mer | 0.93 |
|
| 3′ CGACUCUCACAUCCU | |||
|
| 5′ GCCCCUGUUUUCUGC | 121–128 | 8 mer | 0.93 |
|
| 3′ CGACUCUCACAUCCU | |||
|
| 5′ GUAGUAAAUGUA– | 942–949 | 8 mer | 0.93 |
|
| 3′ CGACUCUCACAUCCU | |||
|
| 5′ CCUCCUACCUCUUCA | 285–292 | 8 mer | 0.91 |
|
| 3′ CGACUCUCACAUCCU | |||
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5′ GAGUCCCUGCCAUCA | 65–72 | 8 mer | 0.92 |
|
| 3′ CGACUCUCACAUCCU | |||
|
| 5′ GCCAUAGU | 2292–2299 | 8 mer | 0.91 |
|
| 3′ CGACUCUC | |||
|
| 5′ AAAUUUAAAAGACAC | 67–74 | 8 mer | 0.84 |
|
| 3′ CGACUCUCACAUCCU | |||
|
| 5′ UGGCUGCACCUGCCA | 371–378 | 8 mer | 0.83 |
|
| 3′ CGACUCUCACAUCCU | |||
PCT – Probability of conserved targeting (Friedman, 2009).
Location of putative miR-130a binding sites in the 3′ UTR of target mRNAs.
| Endocytosis Pathway | ||||
| mRNA-miRNA Pair | Predicted pairing of target and miRNA | Position in 3′ UTR | Seed Match | PCT |
|
| 5′ UUGCUCUUGCCAAAA | 100–107 | 8 mer | 0.90 |
|
| 3′ UACGGGAAAAUUGU | |||
|
| 5′ GAUCAGUUGAGUAUA | 1162–1169 | 8-mer | 0.74 |
|
| 3′ UACGGGAAAAUUGU | |||
|
| 5′ GGGGGCGCUGGGGUG | 224–230 | 7 mer-m8 | 0.76 |
|
| 3′ UACGGGAAAAUUGU | |||
|
| 5′ AUUCCCGUGGUCUCC | 871–877 | 7 mer-m8 | 0.59 |
|
| 3′ UACGGGAAAAUUGU | |||
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5′ UCUCUUC | 419–426 | 8 mer | 0.84 |
|
| 3′ UACGGGA | |||
|
| 5′ UUUGUUUUUUAAGUU | 204–210 | 7 mer-m8 | 0.89 |
|
| 3′ UACGGGAAAAUUGU- | |||
|
| 5′ CAUUAAUCUUUUAUU- | 846–852 | 7 mer-m8 | 0.88 |
|
| 3′ UACGGGAAAAUUGU | |||
|
| 5′ GAUUUUU | 1162–1169 | 7 mer-m8 | 0.78 |
|
| 3′ UACGGG | |||
PCT – Probability of conserved targeting [23].