Florian I Schmidt1, Leo Hanke1, Benjamin Morin2, Rebeccah Brewer1, Vesna Brusic2, Sean P J Whelan2, Hidde L Ploegh1,3. 1. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA. 2. Department of Microbiology and Immunobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. 3. Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.
Abstract
Manipulation of proteins is key in assessing their in vivo function. Although genetic ablation is straightforward, reversible and specific perturbation of protein function remains a challenge. Single domain antibody fragments, such as camelid-derived VHHs, can serve as inhibitors or activators of intracellular protein function, but functional testing of identified VHHs is laborious. To address this challenge, we have developed a lentiviral screening approach to identify VHHs that elicit a phenotype when expressed intracellularly. We identified 19 antiviral VHHs that protect human A549 cells from lethal infection with influenza A virus (IAV) or vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), respectively. Both negative-sense RNA viruses are vulnerable to VHHs uniquely specific for their respective nucleoproteins. Antiviral VHHs prevented nuclear import of viral ribonucleoproteins or mRNA transcription, respectively, and may provide clues for novel antiviral reagents. In principle, the screening approach described here should be applicable to identify inhibitors of any pathogen or biological pathway.
Manipulation of proteins is key in assessing their in vivo function. Although genetic ablation is straightforward, reversible and specific perturbation of protein function remains a challenge. Single domain antibody fragments, such as camelid-derived VHHs, can serve as inhibitors or activators of intracellular protein function, but functional testing of identified VHHs is laborious. To address this challenge, we have developed a lentiviral screening approach to identify VHHs that elicit a phenotype when expressed intracellularly. We identified 19 antiviral VHHs that protect humanA549 cells from lethal infection with influenza A virus (IAV) or vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), respectively. Both negative-sense RNA viruses are vulnerable to VHHs uniquely specific for their respective nucleoproteins. Antiviral VHHs prevented nuclear import of viral ribonucleoproteins or mRNA transcription, respectively, and may provide clues for novel antiviral reagents. In principle, the screening approach described here should be applicable to identify inhibitors of any pathogen or biological pathway.
To identify proteins essential to a biological pathway, small molecule inhibitors
or activators may be used to manipulate protein function transiently. Alternatively,
screens involving mutagenesis, a reduction in levels or complete elimination of gene
products are common[1, 2]. As applied to mammalian cells, these methods
usually seek to achieve the removal of a protein from its normal biological context.
Many proteins are multi-functional, or are components of multi-subunit complexes.
Depletion of any single component may cause unexpected phenotypes due to the collapse of
entire protein complexes. Small molecule inhibitors often lack specificity[3] and at best can target a fraction of all
proteins of interest. The screening of chemically diverse libraries must be paired with
sophisticated methods to identify the molecular targets of any hit identified.
Antibodies have been used as intracellular perturbants of protein function after
microinjection[4] or cytosolic
expression of single chain variable antibody fragments[5], but technical challenges have limited their
application to few selected cases.In addition to conventional antibodies, the immune system of camelids generates
heavy chain-only antibodies[6]. Their
antigen binding site only consists of the variable domain of the heavy chain. This
domain can be expressed on its own and is referred to as a VHH or nanobody, an entity
that can retain its function in the reducing environment of the cytosol and independent
of glycosylation[7]. Many VHHs bind to
their targets with affinities comparable to conventional antibodies. VHHs expressed in
the cytosol can therefore act as molecular perturbants by occluding interfaces involved
in protein-protein interactions, by binding in the active sites of enzymes, or through
recognition or stabilization of distinct conformations of their targets[8, 9]. Both phage and yeast display, as well as mass spectrometry in
combination with high throughput sequencing, allow the identification of VHHs based on
their binding properties[10-12]. Still, the identification of
inhibitory VHHs remains a time-consuming process. VHHs obtained through biochemical
screening methods must be expressed individually in the relevant cell type to test for
the functional consequences of VHH expression. To address this challenge, we developed a
phenotypic VHH screening method in living cells.
Results
A functional VHH screen identifies VHHs that block IAV or VSV
infection
To identify VHHs that perturb or modulate protein function in living
cells, we established a lentiviral screening strategy in which cells are
selected based on the phenotype elicited by the VHHs expressed intracellularly.
In two independent screens, we have identified VHHs that protect humanA549
cells from lethal infection with influenza A virus (IAV) and vesicular
stomatitis virus (VSV), negative-sense RNA viruses that replicate in the nucleus
and cytosol, respectively.We immunized two alpacas with inactivated IAV and VSV, isolated
peripheral blood lymphocytes, extracted RNA, and amplified VHH coding sequences
by PCR using VHH-specific primers (Fig. 1).
VHH coding sequences were cloned into a lentiviral vector that allows their
expression under a doxycycline (Dox)-inducible promoter in transduced cells. VSV
G-pseudotyped lentivirus was produced in 293T cells and used to transduce A549
cells with a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.25 to ensure that cells were
not infected by multiple lentivirus particles. Based on the expression of the
selection marker neomycin phosphotransferase II, we determined the transduction
rate to be 33% in the IAV screen and 55% in the VSV screen
(Supplementary Fig.
1), indicating that 81 and 65% of the transduced cells were
expected to be infected with a single lentivirus (assuming a Poisson
distribution). Following the induction of VHH expression by Dox treatment, the
pool of cells was challenged with a lethal dose of IAV (MOI 13) or VSV (MOI
4.5). To increase the stringency of the selection procedure, cells were
trypsinized two days post infection because infected cells can stay adherent to
tissue culture dishes but do not usually reattach once removed by trypsin
treatment. To prevent continuous superinfection with VSV produced by non-VHH
protected cells, ammonium chloride was added to the media for the first three
days to prevent the endosomal acidification required for VSV G-mediated virus
fusion. Survivors that adhered after trypsinization were grown under
carboxymethyl cellulose overlays to prevent diffusion and further spread of VSV.
Such precautions were not necessary for the IAV screen, since progeny IAV
produced by A549 cells is not infectious unless HA is cleaved by trypsin or
other proteases. Cells that survived the virus challenge were cultured for
3–4 weeks and cells were collected as individual colonies, expanded and
analyzed.
Figure 1
Lentiviral screening approach. Alpacas are immunized with the desired antigen mix
(here: inactivated influenza A virus, IAV, and vesicular stomatitis virus, VSV).
After repeated immunizations, we draw a blood sample, purify lymphocytes,
extract mRNA, reversely transcribe RNA to cDNA, amplify VHH coding sequences and
clone them into a lentiviral vector. Alternatively, VHH coding sequences can be
subcloned from an existing VHH library. 293T cells are transfected with the
lentiviral library as well as packaging vectors, and lentivirus is harvested
from the supernatant 2 days later. We transduce the cell line of interest (here:
A549 cells) and induce VHH expression with doxycycline. Cells are then subjected
to a selection assay that allows identification of cells expressing the desired
VHHs (here: survival of a lethal infection with IAV or VSV). Finally, we
prepared genomic DNA from selected (surviving) cells, amplified the VHH
sequences by PCR and determined the VHH sequence encoded.
Each clone of surviving cells was tested individually in a single-round,
flow cytometry-based, infection assay in the absence or presence of Dox to see
whether infection was blocked by VHH expression. Of 257 of the cell clones
obtained from the IAV screen, 166 showed a Dox-dependent reduction of infection
by at least 40% (Fig. 2a). In the
majority of clones (132), VHH expression reduced infection by more than
80%. 143 of the 282 cell clones obtained from the VSV screen exhibited a
Dox-dependent reduction of infection by more than 40%, most of them
(127) by more than 80%. A substantial fraction of cell clones that did
not meet the hit criteria could no longer be infected even in the absence of
Dox, which we attribute to leaky expression of the VHH in the absence of
induction, or due to the selection of cell clones that were resistant to
infection by genetic abnormalities. We did not pursue these clones further.
Figure 2
Overview of the antiviral VHH screen hits. (a) Summary of the number
of transduced cells, amplified cell clones, number of confirmed hits reducing
infection by more than 40% (80%), number of hits containing a
single insertion, and number of different VHH clusters in the IAV and VSV
screens. Amino acid sequences of the obtained anti-IAV (b) and
anti-VSV (c) VHHs are presented (number independent identifications
in parentheses).
VHH coding sequences from clones considered true hits were amplified from
purified genomic DNA by PCR, followed by direct sequencing of the PCR product.
68 of the 166 IAV hits contained a single VHH insertion that could unambiguously
be sequenced, while 46 of the 143 clones obtained in the VSV screen were the
result of a single insertion. For simplicity, cells with multiple lentivirus
insertions were omitted from further analysis. The amino acid sequence of the
encoded VHHs were compared and clustered by similarity, yielding 15 clusters of
VHHs preventing IAV infection (each found between 1 and 12 times), as well as 4
clusters of VHHs preventing VSV infection (Fig.
2b). Strikingly, the cluster including the anti-VSV VHH 1001 was
identified in 34 of the 41 independent clones with only slight sequence
variations. One of the anti-IAV VHHs, VHH 103 was nearly identical to VHH NP1
that had been identified from a phage display library constructed from the same
immunized animal[13]. Of note, 8
of the anti-IAV VHHs contained signatures of V regions of heavy chains of
conventional antibodies (V37, G44, L45, E46, and W47 in Fig. 2b), which can be used promiscuously for heavy
chain-only antibodies[6, 7, 10]. This phenotypic VHH screen in mammalian cells
identified 19 unique VHHs that block infection with IAV or VSV.
Anti-viral activity of identified VHHs
For each of the hits, representative monoclonal cell lines obtained in
the screen were further characterized. Cells were infected with IAV and VSV in
the absence and presence of Dox (Fig. 3).
As controls, we used cell lines that inducibly express VHH NP1[13], a VHH against IAVNP that
blocks IAV infection, or VHH HA68[14], a VHH specific for the extracellular portion of IAV HA
that does not impair infection with either virus when expressed in the cytosol.
To assess IAV infection by flow cytometry, we stained for NP with fluorescently
labeled VHH NP2[13], another VHH
specific for IAVNP (Fig. 3a). The VSV
strain used expresses EGFP in addition to VSV structural proteins, and infection
was therefore quantified by measuring EGFP-positive cells (Fig. 3b). VHH expression was quantified by staining
the HA-tagged VHHs (Supplementary Fig. 2). With the exception of VHHs 135, 170, and 355,
which reduced IAV infection by 42, 83, and 78%, all IAV hits blocked IAVinfection by more than 90%, but did not impair infection with VSV. Vice
versa, all VSV hits blocked VSV infection by at least 90%, but allowed
IAV infection to proceed to normal levels. Remarkably, almost complete
abrogation of infection was in some cases achieved with VHHs expressed at barely
detectable levels. To verify that the Dox-dependent resistance to infection
indeed depended on the expressed VHH, we transduced A549 cells with lentiviruses
that allow inducible expression of the respective VHHs and confirmed their
antiviral activity (Supplementary Fig. 3). Specificity of inhibition was thus confirmed
unambiguously for the respective virus-specific VHHs
Figure 3
Validation of antiviral VHHs. A549 cells or clones inducibly expressing the
indicated VHHs were treated without or with 1 μg/mL doxycycline (Dox)
for 24 h and subsequently infected with IAV WSN (a, c, d) or VSV
Indiana EGFP[39]
(b, e, f) for 6 or 4 h, respectively. IAV-infected cells were
stained for NP and VHH-HA expression; VSV-infected cells were stained for VHH-HA
expression. Cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (sample histograms in
(a) and (b)); the fraction of infected cells in
the presence of Dox was quantified and normalized to infection in the absence of
Dox. Hits from IAV screen are displayed in (c) and
(d), hits from VSV screen in (e) and (f).
All data is from three independent experiments ± s.e.m.
Identification of the targets recognized by antiviral VHHs
The VHH library used for both screens was constructed based on RNA
obtained from animals immunized with inactivated virions. The identified
antiviral VHHs therefore most likely targeted structural virus proteins. We
applied LUMIER assays[15] to
test the recognition of viral proteins fused to Renilla luciferase by
transiently expressed HA-tagged VHHs. We limited this analysis to virus proteins
exposed to the cytosol or nucleus: the polymerase subunits PB2, PB1 and PA, as
well as nucleoprotein NP, matrix protein M1, and the ion channel M2 in the case
of IAV; the polymerase L, nucleoprotein N, phosphoprotein P, and matrix protein
M in the case of VSV. We found that all newly identified anti-IAV VHHs
recognized the viral nucleoprotein NP (Fig.
4a), and that anti-VSV VHHs targeted the viral nucleocapsid N (Fig 4c). These findings suggest that viral
RNA binding proteins represent an underappreciated vulnerability of
negative-stranded RNA viruses. To efficiently block infection, antiviral VHHs
may have to target incoming viruses at an early step of the life cycle, which
may have biased the screening results towards VHHs that target components of
incoming vRNPs. The exclusive identification of antiviral NP- and N-binders
likely also reflects the abundance of the respective proteins in the virions
used for immunization.
Figure 4
Identification of VHH targets. (a, c) 293T cells were transfected
with expression vectors for the indicated HA-tagged VHHs and structural proteins
of IAV (a) or VSV (c) fused to Renilla luciferase.
Lysates of the respective cells were incubated with immobilized anti-HA
antibodies in 96-well plates. Wells were washed and incubated with Renilla
luciferase substrates to measure co-purified luciferase activity. Emitted light
was normalized to luciferase activity in the lysate. Data from three independent
experiments ± s.e.m. is displayed. (b,d) Purified IAV NP
(b) or VSV N-RNA (d) was pre-incubated with the
His6-tagged VHHs indicated at the top and subsequently subjected
to immunoprecipitation with the specified biotinylated VHH. Precipitation of
NP/N and the respective VHH was analyzed by SDS-PAGE and colloidal Coomassie
staining. Competition due to overlapping binding epitopes of the VHHs is
indicated with red squares, successful co-purification with green squares.
Representative data from at least three experiments is displayed.
We expressed the virus-specific VHHs in bacteria and tested the extent
to which the purified VHHs compete for epitopes on IAVNP and VSVN. For
competition assays, purified NP or N was pre-incubated with an excess of
His6-tagged VHHs. VHHs site-specifically biotinylated by means of
a sortase reaction[16] were then
used for co-precipitation experiments with streptavidin-coupled beads. NP or N
was recovered by the biotinylated VHH, unless pre-incubation with an unlabeled
VHH masked the epitope recognized by the biotinylated VHHs.We could thus categorize the IAVNP-binding VHHs into three groups
(Fig. 4b): Group I included VHH 103,
Group II included VHHs 22 and 495, and Group III was comprised of VHHs 28, 52,
77, 108, 135, 151, 170, 191, 296, 341, 355, and 508. VHH NP2, a VHH specific for
IAVNP identified previously[13]
and used to quantify IAV infection, did not compete with any of the VHHs
identified in this screen (Supplementary Fig. 4).Binding of the VSVN-specific VHHs 1001, 1004, and 1014 was not affected
by any of the other VSV N VHHs, including VHH 1307 (Fig. 4d). Immunoprecipitation of N by VHH 1307,
however, was impaired by preincubation with VHH 1014, although the reverse setup
allowed successful co-immunoprecipitation of N and the His-tagged VHH. This
suggests that 1001, 1004, and 1014 bind to separate epitopes of VSV N, while
1307 may bind to an epitope that is partially overlapping with VHH 1014 or
altered by binding of VHH 1014.
Anti-IAV VHHs block nuclear import of vRNPs and viral mRNA
transcription
We next sought to define the step of the viral replication cycle at
which the anti-IAV VHHs block infection. After fusion of the viral membrane with
that of late endosomes, viral ribonucleoproteins (vRNPs) are released into the
cytosol, followed by import into the nucleus to allow replication and
transcription of viral RNAs. To quantify nuclear import of vRNPs, we infected
VHH-expressing cell lines with a high MOI of IAV in the presence of
cycloheximide to block translation of new viral proteins. We then determined the
localization of incoming vRNPs by confocal fluorescence microscopy (Fig. 5). NP predominantly localized to the
nucleus in untreated A549 cells and in cells expressing the control VHH HA68.
Treatment of A549 cells with bafilomycin A1, an inhibitor of the endosomal
vATPase, blocks endosomal acidification and virus fusion, and thus nuclear
import of vRNPs – causing an absence of nuclear NP staining. To quantify
nuclear import in VHH-expressing cells, we calculated the ratio of NP signal
strength in the nucleus and in the cytoplasm, and determined relative nuclear
import by comparison with untreated cells (relative nuclear import = 1)
and cells treated with bafilomycin A1 (relative nuclear import = 0). With
the exception of VHH 170, all VHHs blocked nuclear import substantially, with
relative nuclear import values ranging from 0 to 0.5. Binding of VHHs to NP must
impair binding of importins to vRNPs, inhibit translocation of vRNPs through the
nuclear pore complex, or interfere with an unknown step that precedes nuclear
import per se. The VHH expressors were challenged with a very
high dose of virus: the respective VHHs must therefore be capable of potently
blocking nuclear import, for some VHHs even when expressed at a relatively low
level (Supplementary Fig.
2). It is possible that the effects of VHH 170 on nuclear import were
overcome in the experimental setup used.
Figure 5
Anti-IAV VHHs block nuclear import of vRNPs and mRNA transcription. (a,
b) A549 cells or clones expressing the indicated VHHs were treated
with 1 μg/mL Dox for 24 h and infected with IAV WSN (MOI 230) in the
presence of 1 mM cycloheximide for 4 h. Controls were treated with 50 nM
bafilomycin A1 (BafA). Cells were stained for NP, HA, DNA, and actin; Z-stacks
were recorded by confocal microscopy and Z projections of representative
examples are displayed in (a). Scale bars represent 20 μm.
NP staining in the nucleus and cytoplasm was quantified with CellProfiler and
ratios of nuclear/cytoplasmic signal intensities were quantified and normalized
to untreated cells (nuclear import = 1.0) and BafA-treated cells
(nuclear import = 0). Values from three independent experiments
± s.e.m. are shown. (c, d) 293T cells were transfected with
expression vectors for IAV WSN PA, PB1, PB2, NP, pPolI-EGFP, and the indicated
HA-tagged VHHs. 24 h post transfection, cells were stained for HA and analyzed
by flow cytometry. The fraction of VHH-HA-positive cells that expressed high
levels of EGFP was quantified. Exemplary histograms are shown in
(c), and average data from three independent experiments
± s.e.m. are displayed in (d).
Inhibition of vRNP nuclear import likely explains the antiviral
properties of the identified anti-IAV VHHs, but it is possible that NP-specific
VHHs perturb other functions of the viral nucleoprotein. Following nuclear
import of vRNPs, the viral RNA polymerase transcribes the viral genomic segments
and replicates the viral RNA genomes (vRNA). NP associates with vRNA and
complementary RNA (cRNA), and is essential for complete replication and
transcription of viral RNA by IAV polymerase[17]. We therefore used a minigenome replication assay, in
which polymerase activity is assessed in the absence of a natural infection: The
viral RNA polymerase subunits PB2, PB1, and PA as well as NP and the respective
VHHs were transiently expressed in the presence of a model IAV genome segment
encoding EGFP (Fig. 5c and 5d). Viral mRNAs
encoding EGFP were transcribed from the model genome and translated. EGFP
expression required the presence of NP as well as each RNA polymerase subunit
(Supplementary Fig.
6), but is not expected to rely on the nuclear import of vRNPs, which
we have shown to be sensitive to antiviral VHHs. Most of the antiviral VHHs and
the control VHH HA68 did not perturb viral gene expression. This suggests that
the binding of a VHH to vRNP templates is in principle compatible with
transcription, at least at the ratio of NP and VHHs achieved in the experimental
setup. However, VHHs 22, 151, and 495 substantially reduced RNA polymerase
activity. We thus identified three VHHs that bind to NP epitopes crucial for
NP-dependent RNA polymerase activity. VHHs 22 and 495, while distinct in
sequence, exhibit similar CDRs and bind to overlapping epitopes on NP,
confirming the functional importance of this binding site. None of the expressed
VHHs prevented nuclear import of free NP (Supplementary Fig. 5).In summary, we found that 14 of the 15 newly identified IAVNP-specific
VHHs block nuclear import of incoming vRNPs, and that at least three of these
also block NP-dependent viral RNA polymerase activity. Our functional VHH screen
therefore discloses vulnerabilities of IAVNP that may represent druggable
targets.
Anti-VSV VHHs block viral mRNA transcription
In the course of VSV entry, viral membranes fuse with limiting membranes
of early endosomes to release the viral genomes with associated proteins into
the host cell cytosol. The genomes are coated by the nucleocapsid protein N
(N-RNA) and are associated with the polymerase L, bound through its co-factor P.
N-RNA serves as a template for polymerase-catalyzed mRNA transcription, which
involves transcription of an uncapped leader sequence, followed by transcription
of five capped and polyadenylated mRNA species, all catalyzed by the
multifunctional RNA polymerase[18-20].To quantify mRNA transcription directly, we infected the VHH-expressing
cell lines with VSV and metabolically labelled the produced RNA species with
[3H]-uridine (Fig.
6a,b). While all five mRNA species could be detected in the absence
of VHH expression, mRNA was undetectable in VSV-infected cells expressing VHH
1001, 1004, and 1307, and substantially reduced in cells expressing VHH 1014.
This confirms that anti-VSV VHHs prevent viral gene expression by directly or
indirectly blocking mRNA transcription.
Figure 6
Anti-VSV VHHs impair mRNA transcription. (a,b) A549 cells or clones
expressing the indicated VHHs were treated with 1 μg/mL Dox for 24 h,
infected with VSV Indiana, and viral RNAs metabolically labeled with
[3H]-uridine. We purified the RNA from cell
lysates and separated RNA species by acid agarose-urea gel electrophoresis. An
autoradiogram representative of three independent experiments is shown; the
positions of the mRNAs of the respective viral genes are indicated. Band
intensities of G, N, and P/M mRNAs were quantified and normalized to band
intensities in the absence of Dox. Average values from three independent
experiments ± s.e.m. are shown. (c) To test the effects of
anti-VSV VHHs on polymerase activity in vitro, we incubated
recombinantly expressed L and P with N-RNA templates purified form VSV virions.
Reactions were performed in the absence or presence of the indicated VHHs as
well as NTPs, including [α-32P]-GTP. RNA
species were separated by acid agarose-urea gel electrophoresis. An
autoradiogram representative of three independent experiments is shown; the
positions of the mRNAs of the respective viral genes are indicated.
The viral mRNAs detected in infected cells are the products of both
primary transcription from incoming viral genomes and transcription from
replicated genomes. To specifically analyze primary transcription, we performed
in vitro polymerase assays in the absence and presence of
VHHs using purified components, including N-RNA templates obtained from
virions[21, 22] (Fig.
6c). At a ratio of 10 molecules of VHH per 63 molecules of N, the
maximum concentration at which all VHHs remained soluble, VHH 1001 and 1307
abrogated RNA transcription almost completely, while VHH 1004 and 1014 did not
substantially block RNA transcription. The lack of inhibition by VHH 1004 and
1014 could be attributed to 1) a binding site on N that allows transcription in
the presence of substoichiometric levels of VHH, 2) lower affinity of the VHHs
to N, or 3) the fact that the respective VHHs target a step that is not
recapitulated in the in vitro assay, for example genome
replication. Exclusive binding of VHHs to newly generated N during infection
in cells could directly perturb genome replication and therefore reduce mRNA
transcription by decreasing the amount of template.In sum, all anti-VSV VHHs block viral mRNA transcription by binding to
the nucleoprotein N. At substoichiometric levels, VHH-binding to different
epitopes of N impaired polymerase activity to variable degrees, suggesting that
different mechanisms of action apply. The exact binding sites may hold clues to
potential antiviral drugs targeting RNA transcription.
Discussion
The perturbation of molecular processes in the cell has mostly relied on
methods that involve genetic intervention (gene knockout, mutagenesis, or
knock-down) or the application of small molecule compounds as inhibitors or
activators. The available arsenal of well-defined pharmacological inhibitors to
reversibly interfere with protein function level is small and mostly limited to
‘druggable’ proteins. Many such compounds were discovered
serendipitously and their specificity is not always easy to establish. The approach
described here allows the functional screening of camelid single domain antibodies
to identify highly specific gain and loss of function molecular perturbants.
Provided a suitable assay is at hand, VHHs can be identified as inhibitors or
modulators of any biological process by such phenotypic screens. VHHs can then be
inducibly expressed to perturb protein function in a highly specific and reversible
manner and thus present a valuable research tool orthogonal to genetic ablation.The use of VHH libraries from animals immunized with a distinct set of
desired protein targets substantially increases the likelihood of obtaining the
desired antibody fragments. Large numbers of candidates can be tested in lentiviral
screens, an approach that could perhaps be applied to synthetic libraries as well.
To identify VHHs, the cytosolic expression of which blocks pathogen infection, it
may even be sufficient to harvest the VHH repertoire from a naturally infected
animal. Selection of VHHs is not limited to lethal screens, but can be extended to
fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and other enrichment strategies following
reporter gene expression or turnover of fluorogenic substrates. There is no reason
why the selected phenotypes should be limited to functional perturbation in the
cytosol, and similar screens may exploit expression of VHHs targeted to other
organelles or rely on display of VHHs at the cell surface. Although we selected and
amplified clonal cell lines from cells that survived the screens, high throughput
sequencing methods could be used instead to identify enriched VHHs. This approach
would be compatible with selection of VHHs in terminally differentiated cells or in
cells that have to be fixed prior to cell sorting.In the screen described here, we identified 19 VHHs that specifically block
infection of cells with IAV or VSV. Previous attempts to identify virus specific
VHHs using phage display with VHH libraries from the same animals yielded fewer hits
that inhibited infection less potently[13]. The screening approach described here thus complements other
VHH screening techniques based on affinity, and is likely to be better at
identifying VHH-based intracellular inhibitors or activators. The identification of
epitopes, the occlusion of which blocks the infectious cycle, may inform the
development of small molecule inhibitors, in particular if they are well conserved
among different serotypes of a virus. In theory, antiviral application of VHHs fused
to cell-penetrating peptides is conceivable as well[23]. These anti-viral VHHs should further help
elucidate the vulnerable steps of the viral life cycle. Ongoing structural analysis
of the anti-IAV VHHs bound to NP may shed light on how incoming vRNPs are imported
into the nucleus and how NP interacts with the necessary cellular factors.
Structures of VHHs capable of inhibiting IAV RNA polymerase activity will help
unravel how NP contributes to the formation of full length viral mRNA, vRNA, and
cRNA transcripts. Similarly, VHHs that target VSVN will be helpful in the molecular
analysis of VSV RNA polymerase activity. The finding here that VHHs have different
inhibition properties on in vitro transcription and the synthesis
of RNA in cells indicates that such tools may well aid in the discrimination of
N-related functions in transcription vs replication. Of note, homologues of the VSV
polymerase and nucleocapsid are found in many human pathogens of the order
mononegavirales, including rabies virus, Ebola virus, mumps virus, measles virus,
and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)[24].
Methods
Cell lines
Human epithelial A549 and HEK 293T cells, canineMDCK cells, and hamsterBHK-21 cells were obtained from ATCC and grown in DMEM supplemented with
10% FBS. A549 cell lines inducibly expressing HA-tagged VHHs were
cultivated in the presence of 500 μg/mL geneticin. All cell lines used
for experiments were negative for Mycoplasma as judged by the
absence of of cytosolic Hoechst 33342-positive foci in immunofluorescence
microscopy samples.
Virus
A/WSN/33 strain of influenza virus was propagated in MDCK cells in the
presence of trypsin and concentrated by sedimentation (75,000 g, 4° C,
2h) through a 20% sucrose cushion (in 20 mM Tris pH 7.6, 150 mM NaCl),
followed by resuspension in desorption buffer (0.245% BSA in 20 mM Tris
pH 7.6, 150 mM NaCl). VSV Indiana and VSV Indiana GFP were propagated in BHK-1
cells. Clarified supernatants were used for flow cytometry-based infection
assays.
Reagents
Doxycycline hyclate (Dox) was purchased from Sigma Aldrich. Hybridoma
cells secreting mouse monoclonal anti-IAVNP (clone H16-L10-4R5, ATCC
HB-65)[25] were obtained
from ATCC and antibodies in the supernatant purified using a protein G column.
Polyclonal rabbit anti-neomycin phosphotransferase II (NPTII) was purchased from
Fitzgerald Industries International. Mouse anti-HA.11 (clone 16B12) was acquired
from BioLegend, polyclonal rabbit anti-HA (Y-11) from Santa Cruz. Mouse
anti-HA.11 (clone 16B12) coupled to Alexa Fluor (AF) 488 or AF594, as well as
fluorescently-labeled secondary antibodies and AF647 Phalloidin were obtained
from Life Technologies.
Generation of lentiviral plasmid VHH library
In order to raise heavy chain-only antibodies against structural
components of IAV and VSV, two male alpacas were immunized five times with a
mixture of ethanol-inactivated IAV PR8 and VSV Indiana (ca. 1012
plaque forming units of each virus per injection) according to a protocol
authorized by the Tufts University Cummings Veterinary School Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee. RNA from peripheral blood lymphocytes was
extracted and used as a template to generate cDNA using three sets of primers
(random hexamers, oligo(dT), and primers specific for the constant region of the
alpaca heavy chain gene)[10, 26]. VHH coding sequences were
amplified by PCR using VHH-specific primers, cut with NotI and AscI, and ligated
into the M13 phagemid vector pJSC to yield the VHH phagemid plasmid library
described in our previous study[13]. A derivative of pInducer20[27], pInducer20-NA, was generated by
removing all NotI restriction sites and by replacing the gateway cassette with a
DNA fragment containing NotI and AscI restriction sites. VHHs were subcloned
into pInducer20-NA and the library amplified in electroporation competent
Escherichia coli (E. coli) ElectroTen-Blue
while maintaining the diversity of the phagemid library
(2.4·107 ampicillin-resistant colonies obtained).
Generation of lentivirus library
Lentiviral particles were generated by transfecting HEK 293T cells in 15
cm dishes with psPax2, pMD2.G (both kind gifts from Didier Trono, École
polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland), and the
pInducer20-NA VHH library using Lipofectamine 2000 (Life Technologies).
Supernatants were harvested 48 h post transfection and filtered through 0.4
μm filters. Virus stocks were titered on A549 cells by flow cytometry
using anti-NPII, goat anti-rabbitAF647 and a BD Biosciences LSRFortessa flow
cytometer.
Lentivirus VHH screen
A549 cells in 15 cm dishes were transduced with the lentivirus library
at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.25 in the presence of 10 μg/mL
polybrene. VHH expression was induced 8 h post transduction by the addition of
Dox to a final concentration of 1 μg/mL. 48 h post transduction, cells
were infected with IAV/WSN/33 in DMEM (0.2% BSA) at an MOI of 13 or VSV
EGFP Indiana in DMEM at an MOI of 4.5. The inoculum was removed 1 h post
infection and cells were covered with fresh DMEM containing 10% FBS, 1
μg/mL Dox, Penicillin/Streptomycin, and Fungizone Antimycotic (Life
Technologies); medium of VSV-infected cells was supplemented with 100 mM
NH4Cl and 20 mM Hepes. 48 h post infection with IAV or VSV, cells
were washed with PBS, trypsinized, split 1:2, and seeded in DMEM with
20% FBS, 1 μg/mL Dox, Penicillin/Streptomycin, and Fungizone
Antimycotic (as well as 100 mM NH4Cl and 20 mM Hepes in case of
VSV-infected cells). The medium of the IAV plates was replaced every 2–3
days until most cells had detached. Adherent cells of the VSV plates were
covered with DMEM containing 1.5% carboxymethyl cellulose, 20%
FBS, 500 μg/mL G418, 1 μg/mL Dox, Penicillin/Streptomycin, and
Fungizone Antimycotic and left unperturbed. 3–4 weeks later, cell
colonies were harvested from the plates, individually amplified, tested in
infection assays, and frozen. To prevent infection of cell clones with residual
VSV, freshly picked clones of the VSV screen were grown in 1.5 μg/mL
VSV-neutralizing antibody IE2[28] and controlled for EGFP expression. To retrieve the VHH
sequences encoded by surviving cell clones, we lysed cells in 1% SDS, 50
mM Tris,100 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 100 μg/mL proteinase K at 55°C
for 2h. Genomic DNA was subsequently precipitated by addition of one volume of
isopropanol, dried in a fume hood, and resuspended in ddH2O. VHH
sequences were amplified with lentivirus-specific primers using the Platinum PCR
Super Mix (Life Technologies) and directly sequenced from PCR products. VHH
sequences were analyzed by ClustalW alignment, and neighbor-joining trees were
constructed to group identical or highly similar sequences (<3 aa differences
in CDRs). One representative sequence of each group was chosen for further
analysis. The antiviral VHH sequences were deposited in the NCBI GenBank
sequence data base with the accession numbers KX022606-KX022624.
Flow cytometry-based infection assays
To quantify infection by flow cytometry, A549 cell lines were seeded in
24-well plates 40 h before infection (2·104 cells/well).
Cells were treated with 1 μg/mL Dox 24 h before infection to induce VHH
expression. Cells were infected with appropriate amounts of IAV WSN/33 (in
0.2% BSA/DMEM) or VSV Indiana GFP (in DMEM) to infect 50% of
wild-type cells. 30 minutes post infection, inocula were removed and cells
cultivated for 5:30 h (IAV) or 3:30 h (VSV) in full medium. Cells were
trypsinized, fixed in 4% formaldehyde/PBS, and stained with 100 ng/mL
AF647-coupled VHH NP2 and mouse anti-HA AF488 (IAV-infected cells), or mouse
anti-HA AF594 (VSV-infected cells), all under permeabilizing conditions.
Fluorescence was quantified using a BD Biosciences LSRFortessa flow cytometer
and the FlowJo software package.
LUMIER Assay
Protein interactions in transfected HEK 293T cells were quantified using
the LUMIER assay according to a protocol modified from Taipale et
al.[29]. HEK 293T
cells in 24-wells were transfected with 0.25 μg bait expression vectors
(pCAGGS VHH-HA) and 0.25 μg prey expression vectors (IAV: empty vector,
pEXPR PB2-Renilla, pEXPR PB1-Renilla, pEXPR PA-Renilla, pEXPR Renilla-NP, pEXPR
Renilla-M1, or pEXPR M2-Renilla; VSV: empty vecor, pEXPR N-Renilla, pEXPR
Renilla-P, pEXPR Renilla-M, pEXPR Renilla-L, pEXPR Renilla-LN, or
pEXPR Renilla-LC; all expression vectors are derived from
pcDNA3-ccdB-Renilla, a kind gift of Mikko Taipale, Susan Lindquist laboratory,
Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA) using Lipofectamine 2000. 24 h post
transfection, cells were lysed in 120 μL LUMIER IP buffer (50 mM Hepes
pH 7.9, 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM EDTA pH 8.0, 0.5% Triton X-100, 5%
glycerol, protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche)). 90 μL of the lysates
were transferred to blocked LUMITRAC™ 600 plates (Greiner)
coated with mouse anti-HA.11 and incubated at 4°C for 3 h. After
extensive washing steps with IP buffer, incubated wells (or 10 μL
lysate) were incubated with Coelenterazine-containing Renilla luciferase
substrate mix (BioLux Gaussia Luciferase Assay Kit, New England BioLabs) and
light emission quantified using a SpectraMax M3 microplate reader (Molecular
Devices). Renilla luciferase activity in the immunoprecipitation samples was
normalized by Renilla luciferase activity in the lysates.
Protein Expression and Purification
For periplasmic bacterial expression, VHH coding sequences were cloned
into a derivative of pHEN6[30]
encoding a C-terminal sortase recognition site (LPETG) followed by a
His6-tag. VHH-LPETG-His6 fusion proteins were
expressed in E. coliWK6 cells and purified from periplasmic
extracts using Ni-NTAaffinity purification and size exclusion chromatography
with a HiLoad 16/600 Superdex 75 pg column. To fluorescently label or
biotinylate VHHs using sortase, proteins were incubated with sortase and
GGG-Alexa Fluor 647 or GGG-biotin as described before (Guimaraes et al., 2013),
followed by removal of His-tagged sortase with Ni-NTA beads and desalting.The IAV/WSN/33 NPcds was cloned into pET30b+.
NP-His6 was expressed in E. coli
LOBSTR[31] and purified
by Ni-NTA purification, Mono S cation exchange chromatography, and size
exclusion chromatography with a HiLoad 16/60 Superdex 200 column. VSV Indiana N
was purified as described before[32]. In brief, E. coliBL21(DE3) was
transformed with pET N/P to co-express VSVN and P protein. The N/P complex
associated with RNA was purified by Ni-NTA purification, P precipitated during
dialysis against an acidic buffer (100 mM citrate, pH 4.0, 250 mM NaCl), and
N-RNA further purified by gel filtration with a HiLoad 16/60 Superdex 200
column.
Competition assays
Immunoprecipitations for competition assays were performed with 2
μg C-terminally biotinylated VHH[16] bound to streptavidin magnetic beads (MyOne Dynabeads;
Life Technologies) and 7.5 μg of recombinant IAV WSN NP. Before addition
to the beads, NP was blocked with 50 μg of the individual His-tagged
VHHs. Bound NP was eluted in 0.2 M glycine, pH 2.2, and analyzed by SDS-PAGE and
colloidal Coomassie staining. The complete gels corresponding to Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 4 are displayed
in Supplementary Fig.
7.
IAV vRNP nuclear import assay
To quantify nuclear import of vRNPs, A549 cell lines were seeded in
24-well plates 40 h before infection (104 cells/well). Cells were
treated with 1 μg/mL Dox 24 h before infection to induce VHH expression.
IAV WSN/33 (in 0.2% BSA/DMEM) at an MOI of 230 was bound to the cells on
ice for 1h in the presence of 1 mM cycloheximide (CHX). Cells were subsequently
covered with fresh BSA/DMEM with CHX and incubated at 37° C for 4 h.
Cells were fixed with 4% formaldehyde and permeabilized in
permeabilisation buffer (PS) (0.05% saponin, 1% BSA,
0.05% NaN3 in PBS) for 20 min. Samples were incubated with
mouse anti-NP (clone HB-65, 1 μg/mL in PS) and rabbit anti-HA (1:200 in
PS) for 2 h, washed with PBS, and subsequently incubated with AF488-coupled goat
anti-mouse IgG and AF594-coupled goat anti-rabbit IgG (both 1:1,000 in PS),
Hoechst 33342 (1:5,000), and AF647 Palloidin (1:100) for 1 h. Samples were
washed with PBS and H2O, and mounted with Fluoromount-G (Southern
Biotech). Z stacks were acquired using a PerkinElmer Ultraview Spinning Disk
Confocal microscope and Z projections from 3 fields of view with a 40x objective
(typically containing ca. 50 cells) were analyzed using CellProfiler[33]. Gaussian filters were applied
to the DNA and actin channels, which were subsequently used to segment nuclei
and cells, respectively. For each cell, the mean intensity of the NP signal in
the nucleus was divided by the mean intensity of the NP signal in the cytoplasm.
Average values for all cells in one experimental condition were calculated and
normalized to the values for untreated A549 cells (nuclear import = 1.0)
and BafA-treated cells (nuclear import = 0).
IAV minigenome replication assay
To quantify polymerase activity of transiently expressed IAV polymerase,
293T cells were transfected with 150 ng of each pCAGGS PB2, pCAGGS PB1, pCAGGS
PA, pCAGGS NP[34], pPolI-EGFP-RT
(a derivative of pPolI-NS-RT[35]
in which the NS coding sequence was replaced with EGFP, and which allowed
transcription of the model IAV genome segment by host cell RNA polymerase I),
and the respective pCAGGS VHH-HA vector (or empty vector) using Lipofectamine
2000. 24 h post transfection, cells were fixed and stained with AF594mouse
anti-HA. VHH-HA expression was measured and EGFP fluorescence in HA-positive
cells quantified using a BD Biosciences LSRFortessa flow cytometer and the
FlowJo software package.
VSV mRNA transcription assay in infected cells
To analyze viral RNA species in infected cells, A549 cell lines were
seeded in 60 mm dishes and, where indicated, VHH expression induced with 1
μg/mL Dox for 24 h hours. 85% confluent cells were infected with
VSV at an MOI of 100 in 1 ml of DMEM with 1 μg/ml of Dox (where
indicated). After 45 min at 34° C, 2 ml of DMEM complemented with 60
μl actinomycin D (0.5 mg/ml), 50 μl of
[5,6-3H]-Uridine (38 Ci/mmol, Moravek Biochemicals)
and 1 μg/ml of Dox (where indicated) were added to the cells. After 5 h
of incubation at 34° C, cytoplasmic extracts were prepared and RNA was
purified by phenol/chloroform extraction as described previously[36]. Purified RNA extracts were
analyzed by acid/agarose gel electrophoresis and autoradiography[37]. The complete autoradiograph
corresponding to Fig. 6a is displayed in
Supplementary Fig.
7.
VSV in vitro transcription assay
Genomic N-RNA templates were prepared from VSV virions as previously
described[21].
Polymerase assays were carried out as described[38] using 0.25 μg of N-RNA with 0.2
μM of VSV L and 0.3 μM of VSV P in a reaction mixture containing
20 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 50 mM NaCl, 6 mM MgCl2, 500 μM UTP, 250 μM
GTP, 1 mM ATP, 1 mM CTP, 165 nM of [α32P]-GTP
(3000 Ci/mmol) (Perkin-Elmer) and, where indicated, 80 μM of the
respective VHHs. Reactions were incubated at 30° C for 2.5 h and stopped
by addition of EDTA/formamide. Reactions products were resolved using
acid/agarose gel electrophoresis and autoradiography[37]. The complete autoradiograph
corresponding to Fig. 6c is displayed in
Supplementary Fig.
7.
Authors: Stephanie E Mohr; Jennifer A Smith; Caroline E Shamu; Ralph A Neumüller; Norbert Perrimon Journal: Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 94.444
Authors: K E Conrath; M Lauwereys; M Galleni; A Matagne; J M Frère; J Kinne; L Wyns; S Muyldermans Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Kristen L Meerbrey; Guang Hu; Jessica D Kessler; Kevin Roarty; Mamie Z Li; Justin E Fang; Jason I Herschkowitz; Anna E Burrows; Alberto Ciccia; Tingting Sun; Earlene M Schmitt; Ronald J Bernardi; Xiaoyong Fu; Christopher S Bland; Thomas A Cooper; Rachel Schiff; Jeffrey M Rosen; Thomas F Westbrook; Stephen J Elledge Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Brian A Sosa; F Esra Demircioglu; James Z Chen; Jessica Ingram; Hidde L Ploegh; Thomas U Schwartz Journal: Elife Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Ross W Cheloha; Thibault J Harmand; Charlotte Wijne; Thomas U Schwartz; Hidde L Ploegh Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Matthias C Truttmann; Xu Zheng; Leo Hanke; Jadyn R Damon; Monique Grootveld; Joanna Krakowiak; David Pincus; Hidde L Ploegh Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Leo Hanke; Florian I Schmidt; Kevin E Knockenhauer; Benjamin Morin; Sean Pj Whelan; Thomas U Schwartz; Hidde L Ploegh Journal: EMBO Rep Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 8.807
Authors: Leo Hanke; Kevin E Knockenhauer; R Camille Brewer; Eline van Diest; Florian I Schmidt; Thomas U Schwartz; Hidde L Ploegh Journal: mBio Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 7.867