| Literature DB >> 26322642 |
Sung Hyun Ahn1, Doo Hyun Kim1, Ah Ram Lee1, Beom Kyung Kim2, Yong Kwang Park1, Eun-Sook Park3, Sang Hoon Ahn2, Gu-Choul Shin3, Soree Park1, Hong Seok Kang1, Jin-Kyu Rhee4, Sung-Il Yang1, Youhoon Chong5, Kyun-Hwan Kim6.
Abstract
The emergence of compensatory mutations in the polymerase gene of drug resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV) is associated with treatment failure. We previously identified a multi-drug resistant HBV mutant, which displayed resistance towards lamivudine (LMV), clevudine (CLV), and entecavir (ETV), along with a strong replication capacity. The aim of this study was to identify the previously unknown compensatory mutations, and to determine the clinical relevance of this mutation during antiviral therapy. In vitro mutagenesis, drug susceptibility assay, and molecular modeling studies were performed. The rtL269I substitution conferred 2- to 7-fold higher replication capacity in the wild-type (WT) or YMDD mutation backbone, regardless of drug treatment. The rtL269I substitution alone did not confer resistance to LMV, ETV, adefovir (ADV), or tenofovir (TDF). However, upon combination with YMDD mutation, the replication capacity under LMV or ETV treatment was enhanced by several folds. Molecular modeling studies suggested that the rtL269I substitution affects template binding, which may eventually lead to the enhanced activity of rtI269-HBV polymerase in both WT virus and YMDD mutant. The clinical relevance of the rtL269I substitution was validated by its emergence in association with YMDD mutation in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with sub-optimal response or treatment failure to LMV or CLV. Our study suggests that substitution at rt269 in HBV polymerase is associated with multi-drug resistance, which may serve as a novel compensatory mutation for replication-defective multi-drug resistant HBV.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26322642 PMCID: PMC4556173 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136728
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Characterization of multi-drug resistant HBV mutant 50–2 isolated from a chronic HBV patient.
(A) Schematic representation of the mutations in RT and overlapping surface gene of clone 50–2. The amino acid changes in polymerase and corresponding surface gene are indicated by arrows. (B) Comparison of intracellular and extracellular secreted HBV DNA levels between WT virus and clone 50–2. The HBV 1.2mer construct plasmids (2 μg) were transfected into Huh7 hepatoma cells and harvested at 72h post-transfection. The linearized 3.2kb HBV genome was loaded in lane 1 as a marker. (C) & (D) In vitro susceptibility WT HBV (C) and clone 50–2 (D) to lamivudine (LMV), clevudine (CLV), entecavir (ETV), adefovir (ADV), and tenofovir (TDF). Cells were treated for 3 days with each drug, and the replication level was compared with that of the WT (without drug treatment). The relative HBV replication level was quantified using Phosphorimager. The standard deviation of three independent experiments was measured (***, P < 0.001).
Fig 2rtL269I substitution enhances the replication of both WT and drug-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV).
(A) Schematic diagram of each HBV mutant construct used in this study. (B–C) Effect of mutations at positions 204, 173, 129, 337, and 269 on HBV DNA replication. Huh7 cells cultured in six-well plates were transfected with HBV plasmids. HBV DNA levels were analyzed by Southern blotting. HBeAg in culture supernatant was determined by ELISA. (D) Phosphor-imager analysis of the relative replication capacities of the HBV mutants. The standard deviation from three independent experiments was calculated (**, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001).
Fig 3Effect of rtL269I and other substitutions on resistance to lamivudine (LMV).
(A) HBV DNA constructs were transfected into Huh7 cells, which were treated with LMV for 3 days. The intracellular HBV DNA was prepared for Southern blot analysis. A representative result has been shown. (B) The relative replication levels of each HBV mutant (no drug vs LMV treatment) were calculated based on the results of Figs 2C and 3A. (C) The relative replication ability of the HBV mutants treated with LMV were determined by Southern blotting and quantified by Phosphorimager (*, P < 0.05). The relative replication levels of each HBV construct was shown as the mean value of at least three independent experiments.
Fig 4Effect of rtL269I substitution on the resistance to entecavir (ETV).
(A) HBV 1.2mer DNA of all the mutants was transfected into Huh7 cells, which were treated with ETV for 3 days. The intracellular HBV DNA level was determined by Southern blot analysis. A representative result was displayed. (B) The relative replication levels of each HBV mutant (no drug vs ETV treatment) was calculated based on the results displayed in Figs 2C and 4A. (C) The relative replication ability of the HBV mutants treated with ETV were determined by Southern blot analysis, and quantified by Phosphorimager (*, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001). The relative replication level of each HBV construct was displayed as the mean value of at least three independent experiments.
Fig 5Molecular modeling of rtL269I of HBV polymerase.
(A) The three dimensional structure of the modeled HBV polymerase-DNA-TTP complex and (B) the expanded structure around rtL269. N-3 denotes the third nucleotide in the primer strand, starting from the 3′-end, just above the substrate-binding site. The domains of fingers, palm and thumb are shown in green, gray and pink colors, respectively. Also, the primer and template strand are shown in yellow and blue, respectively. TTP and active site residues (Asp83, Asp205 and Asp206) are colored by atom-types. The active site is noted as a dotted box. (C) When Leucine is mutated to isoleucine, residue 269 experiences steric clash with the neighboring rtR289 (block arrow), which would result in a conformational change in the primer binding residue, rtW284, and consequently, in the primer nucleotide, N-3 (dotted arrow).
Mutation profiles in patients exhibiting suboptimal responses during LMV or CLV therapy.
| Number | Gender | Age | Genotype | HBeAg | AST (IU/L) | ALT (IU/L) | HBV DNA (IU/mL) | Treatment History | Mutation profiles | rtL269I (prior to therapy) | rtL269I (during therapy) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 47 | C2 | + | 23 | 15 | 5.4 × 106 | LMV | N/A | - | - |
| 2 | F | 38 | C2 | + | 17 | 14 | 2.4 × 103 | LMV | rtL180M, rtM204V, rtL269I | - | + |
| 3 | M | 45 | C2 | + | 34 | 39 | 5.1 × 103 | LMV | rtL180M, rtM204V, rtL269I | - | + |
| 4 | M | 28 | C2 | + | 23 | 46 | 4.9 × 106 | LMV | rtL180M, rtM204V, rtL269I | - | + |
| 5 | M | 32 | C2 | + | 21 | 41 | 9.1 × 106 | LMV→ETV 1.0mg | N/A | - | - |
| 6 | M | 53 | C2 | + | 27 | 28 | 2.4 × 104 | LMV | rtM204I | - | - |
| 7 | F | 54 | C2 | + | 28 | 24 | 3.8 × 105 | LMV→ETV 1.0mg | N/A | - | - |
| 8 | M | 55 | C2 | + | 62 | 78 | 3.3 × 103 | LMV | rtL180M, rtM204V/I | - | - |
| 9 | M | 28 | C2 | + | 26 | 46 | 5.6 × 104 | LMV | N/A | - | - |
| 10 | F | 47 | C2 | + | 22 | 22 | 2.4 × 102 | LMV | rtL180M, rtM204V | - | - |
| 11 | M | 46 | C2 | + | 29 | 48 | 7.5 × 105 | LMV | rtM204I, rtL269I | - | + |
| 12 | F | 36 | C2 | + | 22 | 25 | 5.1 × 106 | LMV | rtM204I | - | - |
| 13 | F | 59 | C2 | + | 58 | 20 | 4.2 × 106 | LMV→ETV 1.0mg | rtL180M, rtM204V/I, rtL269I | - | + |
| 14 | F | 46 | C2 | + | 23 | 7 | 8.0 × 104 | LMV→ETV 1.0mg | N/A | - | - |
| 15 | F | 41 | C2 | + | 16 | 18 | 1.6 × 103 | LMV | N/A | - | - |
| 16 | F | 25 | C2 | + | 28 | 53 | 9.8 × 104 | LMV | rtL180M, rtM204V | - | - |
| 17 | M | 47 | C2 | + | 24 | 20 | 9.6 × 101 | LMV | rtL180M, rtM204V | - | - |
| 18 | M | 31 | C2 | + | 12 | 23 | 1.1 × 105 | LMV | rtL180M, rtM204V | - | - |
| 19 | F | 48 | C2 | + | 34 | 28 | 1.1 × 107 | CLV | rtM204I | - | - |
| 20 | M | 39 | C2 | + | 29 | 24 | 2.6 × 108 | CLV | rtM204I, rtL269I | - | + |
| 21 | M | 29 | C2 | + | 31 | 47 | 5.5 × 106 | CLV | rtM204I | - | - |
| 22 | F | 52 | C2 | + | 35 | 29 | 8.0 × 105 | CLV | rtM204I, rtL269I | + | + |
Mutation profiles of patients exhibiting “difficult-to-treat” CHB.
| Number | Gender | Age | Genotype | HBeAg | AST (IU/L) | ALT (IU/L) | HBV DNA (IU/mL) | Treatment History | Mutation profiles | rtL269I |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 51 | C2 | + | 30 | 42 | 7.1 x 103 | LMV→ADV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtA181T, rtT184L, rtM204V, rtL269I | + |
| 2 | M | 52 | C2 | + | 56 | 123 | 1.0 x 103 | LMV→ADV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtA181T, rtT184L, rtS202G, rtM204V/I, rtL269I | + |
| 3 | M | 37 | C2 | - | 45 | 96 | 1.8 x 105 | LMV→ADV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtM204V, rtN236T, rtM250V, rtL269I | + |
| 4 | M | 36 | C2 | + | 85 | 75 | 5.9 x 105 | LMV→ADV→ETV 1.0mg | rtL180M, rtA181V, rtM204V, rtL269I | + |
| 5 | M | 58 | C2 | + | 17 | 15 | 1.1 x 103 | LMV→ADV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtT184L, rtM204V/I, rtN236T, rtL269I | + |
| 6 | M | 52 | C2 | + | 38 | 27 | 1.9 x 105 | LMV→ADV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtA181V, rtM204V, rtM250V, rtL269I | + |
| 7 | M | 48 | C2 | + | 36 | 56 | 4.2 x 105 | LMV→ADV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtA181T, rt184L, rtM204V, rtN236T, rtL269I | + |
| 8 | M | 58 | C2 | + | 23 | 27 | 6.4 x 104 | LMV→ADV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtA181T, rtM204V, rtN236T, rtM250V, rtL269I | + |
| 9 | M | 52 | C2 | + | 22 | 27 | 1.93 x 107 | LMV→LMV+ADV→ETV 1.0mg | rtL180M, rt184L, rtM204V, rtL269I | + |
| 10 | M | 53 | C2 | + | 42 | 55 | 5.20 x 102 | ADV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtT184L/I, rtS202G, rtM204V, rtL269I | + |
| 11 | F | 67 | C2 | + | 52 | 26 | 5.73 x 104 | LMV→ETV 1.0mg | rtM204V, rtL269I | + |
| 12 | M | 48 | C2 | + | 29 | 49 | 8.11 x 104 | LMV→ETV 1.0mg | rtL180M, rtM204V | - |
| 13 | F | 60 | C2 | + | 81 | 101 | 5.54 x 105 | LMV→ETV 1.0mg→ETV 1.0mg+ADV | rtL180M, rtT184L, rtM204V, rtL269I | + |
| 14 | M | 45 | C2 | + | 18 | 22 | 1.78 x 106 | LMV→ETV 1.0mg | rtL180M, rtS202G, rtM204V, rtL269I | + |
*Among the 14 “difficult-to-treat” CHB cases, only one did not express an rtL269I mutation