Literature DB >> 25103897

The cellular receptor for enterovirus 71.

Yue Liu1, Michael G Rossmann.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25103897      PMCID: PMC4145082          DOI: 10.1007/s13238-014-0092-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Protein Cell        ISSN: 1674-800X            Impact factor:   14.870


× No keyword cloud information.
The Picornaviridae family consists of a large group of non-enveloped, icosahedral viruses with a single, positive-stranded RNA genome. The family includes pathogens that are notable for a variety of human and animal diseases (Racaniello, 2007). Picornaviruses initiate infections by attachment to host cell receptor molecules and then undergo uncoating to release the viral genome into the cytosol for replication (Racaniello, 2007). The enterovirus (EV) genus is perhaps the most intensively studied genus among the 26 known genera. X-ray crystallography (Hogle et al., 1985; Rossmann et al., 1985), cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) (Olson et al., 1993; Bubeck et al., 2005b) and molecular biology have unraveled some of the molecular mechanisms of EV cell entry (Tuthill et al., 2010). Specifically, a canyon-like cleft on the surface of the virus encircling each pentameric vertex is frequently the binding site for putative cellular receptors whose structure belongs to the immunoglobulin superfamily (Table 1) (Rossmann et al., 2002). When these receptor molecules bind into the “canyon” of the EVs, the “pocket factor”, a fatty acid-like molecule residing in a hydrophobic pocket underneath the “canyon”, is ejected (Rossmann, 1994; Xiao et al., 2005; Xiao et al., 2011). This destabilizes the virus and triggers the uncoating process leading to the formation of uncoating intermediate A particles (Rossmann et al., 2002; Bubeck et al., 2005a; Zhang et al., 2008). When a receptor binds into the canyon, the base of the canyon is depressed towards the center of the virus thus diminishing the size of the pocket that contains the pocket factor, causing the stabilizing pocket factor to be ejected. This happens because the peptides forming the base of the canyon also form the roof of the pocket. Thus, in essence, either the receptor or the pocket factor can bind to the virus, but not both (Smith et al., 1986; Rossmann, 1989). However, receptors to some EVs, such as the minor group rhinoviruses, bind to other locations on the viral surface and don’t assist in viral uncoating (Table 1) (Plevka et al., 2010; Tuthill et al., 2010; Shakeel et al., 2013).
Table 1

Selected enteroviruses and their cell entry characteristics

VirusReceptorReceptor structural featureBinding site on virusInitiation of uncoating
Poliovirus 1–3CD155Ig-likeCanyonYes
Coxsackievirus A21ICAM-1Ig-likeCanyonYes
Major group rhinovirusesICAM-1Ig-likeCanyonYes
Coxsackievirus B3CARIg-likeCanyonYes
Coxsackievirus A9Integrin αvβ6, αvβ3V-shaped, 12 domainsNear two-fold axesNo
Echovirus 7CD55Four short consensus repeatsNear two-fold axesNo
Minor group rhinovirusesLDLR family“arc”-like arrangement of ligand binding domain repeatsShallow pits near five-fold axesNo

The table is based on observations by Rossmann et al., (2002), Plevka et al., (2010), Tuthill et al., (2010) and Shakeel et al., (2013)

ICAM-1 intercellular adhension molecule 1, CAR coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor, LDLR low density lipoprotein receptor

Selected enteroviruses and their cell entry characteristics The table is based on observations by Rossmann et al., (2002), Plevka et al., (2010), Tuthill et al., (2010) and Shakeel et al., (2013) ICAM-1 intercellular adhension molecule 1, CAR coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor, LDLR low density lipoprotein receptor Human enterovirus 71 (EV71) is currently a major causative agent for hand, foot and mouth disease with occasionally severe neurological complications. A growing number of EV71 outbreaks have been reported in the Asia-Pacific area since the late 1990s raising considerable public health concerns (Yip et al., 2013). Two transmembrane proteins, human PSGL-1 (P-selectin glycoprotein ligand-1) and human SCARB2 (scavenger receptor B2), have been identified as the functional receptors for EV71 (Nishimura et al., 2009; Yamayoshi et al., 2009). Unlike human PSGL-1, human SCARB2 is expressed in a wide range of tissues, including neurons in the central nervous system, and functions as a receptor for all tested EV71 strains. More importantly, human SCARB2 not only binds to EV71 but induces EV71 uncoating in a low pH environment (Yamayoshi et al., 2013), which is consistent with the finding that endosomal acidification is essential for EV71 infection (Lin et al., 2012). SCARB2 has a novel fold with a twisted β-barrel core (Neculai et al., 2013). It appears that residues 144–151 of a three-helix bundle at the head region of human SCARB2 are directly involved in EV71 binding according to two independent studies (Yamayoshi and Koike, 2011; Chen et al., 2012). Nevertheless, there is some uncertainty whether there are also other residues involved in virus attachment. Thus the human SCARB2-dependent uncoating of EV71 remains enigmatic. Dang et al. now present structural and functional studies of human SCARB2 (Dang et al., 2014). Human SCARB2 structures at both neutral and acidic conditions were determined by X-ray crystallography, showing a pH-dependent conformational change of the three-helix bundle. Structural comparisons indicate that the helical bundle acts as a “cap” that regulates the accessibility of the entrance to a large cavity which traverses the whole length of the ectodomain and might be a lipid-transfer tunnel. Recombinant human SCARB2 was shown to facilitate the expulsion of sphingosine (a pseudo-pocket factor) from EV71 saturated with radioisotope labelled sphingosine under acidic conditions. Furthermore, the transition of native EV71 to A particles on binding SCARB2 demonstrated that EV71 undergoes uncoating upon incubation with human SCARB2 in a low pH environment. In vitro binding assays, employing synthetic peptides together with in silico docking, suggested the three-helix bundle binds to the EV71 “canyon” and that the entrance of the putative lipid-transfer tunnel is in proximity to the hydrophobic pocket underneath the “canyon” at neutral pH. Taken together, these findings offer a novel model for human SCARB2-dependent cell entry of EV71 in which human SCARB2 serves as a molecular switch that aids in the expulsion of the pocket factor and triggers EV71 uncoating upon acidification. The expulsion of the labelled sphingosine by binding of SCARB2 supports the suggestion that the receptor binds into the canyon as proposed by Dang et al. Hence, an alternative explanation of the above observations is that binding of SCARB2 expels the pocket factor and destabilizes the virus in much the same way as the other receptor molecules that are known to bind into the canyon of EVs. Another aspect of the study by Dang et al. is that acid-induced conformational change of the “cap” region might be a common basis for pH-dependent interactions of SCARB2 with its ligands including both EV71 (an exogenous ligand) and β-glucocerebrosidase (β-GC, an endogenous ligand), as SCARB2 was known to deliver β-GC from the endoplasmic reticulum to lysosomes (Zachos et al., 2012). Thus it would be interesting to determine which residues are important for the pH-induced structural changes and whether substitutions of these residues would impair the ability of SCARB2 to trigger EV71 uncoating and transport β-GC. More importantly, SB-RI and CD36, which are homologous to SCARB2, have so far been shown to transport cholesterol and fatty-acids, respectively (Neculai et al., 2013). SCARB2, however, hasn’t been demonstrated to possess the ability of binding and/or delivering lipid despite containing a large cavity that might accommodate lipid ligands. Therefore, the functional importance of this large cavity remains to be further characterized. Although Dang et al. have made some interesting suggestions regarding the interaction of EV71 with human SCARB2, there are still many other questions that need to be answered. For instance, does human SCARB2 induce the uncoating in other viruses that can interact with SCARB2 such as coxsackievirus A7, A14 and A16 (Yamayoshi et al., 2012)? If yes, would the acid-triggered conformational change be a major factor for the uncoating of these viruses? Is it possible to design agents that interfere with the pH- dependent conformational change of SCARB2 or bind to the presumable lipid-transfer tunnel? Can these agents be selectively designed so as to inhibit EV71 and other related viruses without affecting the normal function of SCARB2 in host cells? In summary, the work by Dang et al. provides a new model for receptor-mediated entry of picornaviruses into host cells that depends on the pH-triggered conformational change of the receptor molecule. The detailed molecular basis of the interaction between EV71 with human SCARB2 and the functional importance of the large cavity within SCARB2 still remains open questions for future studies.
  25 in total

Review 1.  Picornavirus-receptor interactions.

Authors:  Michael G Rossmann; Yongning He; Richard J Kuhn
Journal:  Trends Microbiol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 17.079

2.  A critical histidine residue within LIMP-2 mediates pH sensitive binding to its ligand β-glucocerebrosidase.

Authors:  Christina Zachos; Judith Blanz; Paul Saftig; Michael Schwake
Journal:  Traffic       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 6.215

3.  Structure of LIMP-2 provides functional insights with implications for SR-BI and CD36.

Authors:  Dante Neculai; Michael Schwake; Mani Ravichandran; Friederike Zunke; Richard F Collins; Judith Peters; Mirela Neculai; Jonathan Plumb; Peter Loppnau; Juan Carlos Pizarro; Alma Seitova; William S Trimble; Paul Saftig; Sergio Grinstein; Sirano Dhe-Paganon
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-10-27       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Structure of a human common cold virus and functional relationship to other picornaviruses.

Authors:  M G Rossmann; E Arnold; J W Erickson; E A Frankenberger; J P Griffith; H J Hecht; J E Johnson; G Kamer; M Luo; A G Mosser
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1985 Sep 12-18       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Molecular determinants of enterovirus 71 viral entry: cleft around GLN-172 on VP1 protein interacts with variable region on scavenge receptor B 2.

Authors:  Pan Chen; Zilin Song; Yonghe Qi; Xiaofeng Feng; Naiqing Xu; Yinyan Sun; Xing Wu; Xin Yao; Qunyin Mao; Xiuling Li; Wenjuan Dong; Xiaobo Wan; Niu Huang; Xinliang Shen; Zhenglun Liang; Wenhui Li
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 5.157

6.  Human SCARB2-dependent infection by coxsackievirus A7, A14, and A16 and enterovirus 71.

Authors:  Seiya Yamayoshi; Setsuko Iizuka; Teruo Yamashita; Hiroko Minagawa; Katsumi Mizuta; Michiko Okamoto; Hidekazu Nishimura; Kanako Sanjoh; Noriko Katsushima; Tsutomu Itagaki; Yukio Nagai; Ken Fujii; Satoshi Koike
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 5.103

7.  Structural and functional analysis of coxsackievirus A9 integrin αvβ6 binding and uncoating.

Authors:  Shabih Shakeel; Jani J T Seitsonen; Tommi Kajander; Pasi Laurinmäki; Timo Hyypiä; Petri Susi; Sarah J Butcher
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 5.103

8.  Functional comparison of SCARB2 and PSGL1 as receptors for enterovirus 71.

Authors:  Seiya Yamayoshi; Seii Ohka; Ken Fujii; Satoshi Koike
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 5.103

Review 9.  Human enterovirus 71 epidemics: what's next?

Authors:  Cyril C Y Yip; Susanna K P Lau; Patrick C Y Woo; Kwok-Yung Yuen
Journal:  Emerg Health Threats J       Date:  2013-09-10

10.  Molecular mechanism of SCARB2-mediated attachment and uncoating of EV71.

Authors:  Minghao Dang; Xiangxi Wang; Quan Wang; Yaxin Wang; Jianping Lin; Yuna Sun; Xuemei Li; Liguo Zhang; Zhiyong Lou; Junzhi Wang; Zihe Rao
Journal:  Protein Cell       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 14.870

View more
  4 in total

1.  Structure, Immunogenicity, and Protective Mechanism of an Engineered Enterovirus 71-Like Particle Vaccine Mimicking 80S Empty Capsid.

Authors:  Xiaoli Wang; Zhiqiang Ku; Xiang Zhang; Xiaohua Ye; Jinhuan Chen; Qingwei Liu; Wei Zhang; Chao Zhang; Zhenglin Fu; Xia Jin; Yao Cong; Zhong Huang
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 5.103

2.  A Single Mutation in the VP1 Gene of Enterovirus 71 Enhances Viral Binding to Heparan Sulfate and Impairs Viral Pathogenicity in Mice.

Authors:  Xianliang Ke; Yuan Zhang; Yan Liu; Yuanjiu Miao; Caishang Zheng; Dan Luo; Jianhong Sun; Qinxue Hu; Yi Xu; Hanzhong Wang; Zhenhua Zheng
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 5.048

3.  Amphotericin B Inhibits Enterovirus 71 Replication by Impeding Viral Entry.

Authors:  Fengwen Xu; Xiaoxiao Zhao; Siqi Hu; Jian Li; Lijuan Yin; Shan Mei; Tingting Liu; Ying Wang; Lili Ren; Shan Cen; Zhendong Zhao; Jianwei Wang; Qi Jin; Chen Liang; Bin Ai; Fei Guo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Metabolic labeling of enterovirus 71 with quantum dots for the study of virus receptor usage.

Authors:  Xianliang Ke; Chunjie Li; Dan Luo; Ting Wang; Yan Liu; Zhongyuan Tan; Mingyuan Du; Zhike He; Hanzhong Wang; Zhenhua Zheng; Yuan Zhang
Journal:  J Nanobiotechnology       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 10.435

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.