| Literature DB >> 27829070 |
Neil J Ball1, Giuseppe Nicastro1, Moumita Dutta2, Dominic J Pollard1, David C Goldstone1, Marta Sanz-Ramos3, Andres Ramos1, Erik Müllers4, Kristin Stirnnagel4, Nicole Stanke4, Dirk Lindemann4, Jonathan P Stoye3,5, William R Taylor6, Peter B Rosenthal2, Ian A Taylor1.
Abstract
The Spumaretrovirinae, or foamy viruses (FVs) are complex retroviruses that infect many species of monkey and ape. Despite little sequence homology, FV and orthoretroviral Gag proteins perform equivalent functions, including genome packaging, virion assembly, trafficking and membrane targeting. However, there is a paucity of structural information for FVs and it is unclear how disparate FV and orthoretroviral Gag molecules share the same function. To probe the functional overlap of FV and orthoretroviral Gag we have determined the structure of a central region of Gag from the Prototype FV (PFV). The structure comprises two all α-helical domains NtDCEN and CtDCEN that although they have no sequence similarity, we show they share the same core fold as the N- (NtDCA) and C-terminal domains (CtDCA) of archetypal orthoretroviral capsid protein (CA). Moreover, structural comparisons with orthoretroviral CA align PFV NtDCEN and CtDCEN with NtDCA and CtDCA respectively. Further in vitro and functional virological assays reveal that residues making inter-domain NtDCEN-CtDCEN interactions are required for PFV capsid assembly and that intact capsid is required for PFV reverse transcription. These data provide the first information that relates the Gag proteins of Spuma and Orthoretrovirinae and suggests a common ancestor for both lineages containing an ancient CA fold.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27829070 PMCID: PMC5102385 DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005981
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Pathog ISSN: 1553-7366 Impact factor: 6.823
Fig 6Cryo-electron microscopy analysis of wt and mutant PFV particles.
(A) 5 nm thick slices of electron cryotomograms of five individual wt PFV particles. (B) 5 nm thick slices of electron cryotomograms of four PFV-Gag central domain mutants. Three representative images of each mutant are shown. Scale bars are 50 nm.
NMR and refinement statistics for PFV-Gag Central domains.
| PFV-Gag (300–477) | PFV-Gag CtDCEN | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| NOE Distance constraints | ||
| | 4140 | 3061 |
| | 3637 | 2616 |
| | 20x2 | |
| Hydrogen bonds | 48 | 31x2 |
| Total dihedral angle restraints | ||
| | 113 | 74x2 |
| | 114 | 74x2 |
| Total RDCs | 46 | 41x2 |
|
| ||
| Violations (mean and s.d.) | ||
| | 0 | 0 |
| Deviations from idealised geometry | ||
| | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Average pairwise r.m.s. deviation (Å) | ||
| | 0.6 | 0.6 |
Z-score and T-test significance of SAP alignments.
| Ortho NCA | Ortho CCA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virus | Spuma-N | Spuma-C | Spuma-N | Spuma-C |
| BLV |
| 3.67 | 3.40 |
|
| HIV-1 | 3.70 | 3.69 | 3.76 | 3.36 |
| HML2 | 2.17 |
| 3.02 | 3.90 |
| HTLV-1 |
|
| 3.85 | 2.81 |
| RSV | 3.12 | 3.54 | 3.75 |
|
|
| 9.47e-15 | 1.49e-6 | 5.31e-15 | 1.32e-18 |
| -log10(Tprob) | 15 | 6 | 15 | 18 |
|
| 12 | / | / | / |
1Z score. Pairings with Z > 4 are in highlighted in bold
2Student’s T-test probability
3Differential probability = log10(TprobNN.TprobCC)–log10(TprobNC.TprobCN)
Hydrodynamic parameters of PFV-Gag Central domains.
| PFV-Gag | PFV-Gag | PFV-Gag | PFV-Gag | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (300–477) | NtDCEN | CTDCEN mon | CTDCEN dim | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.7416 | 0.7415 | 0.7312 | |
| ρ(g.ml-1) | 1.005 | 1.005 | 1.005 | |
|
| 20,543 | 10,660 | 11,894 | |
| ε280 (M-1.cm-1) | 16,960 | 11,000 | 5,960 | |
|
| ||||
| Crange (μM) | 24–97 | 188 | 42–168 | |
|
| 1.87 | 1.25 | 1.65 | 2.07 |
|
| 20.6 | 10.3 | 14.7 | 20.7 |
|
| 3.0–5.1 | 5.7 | 5.8–7.6 | |
|
| ||||
| Crange (μM) | 24–97 | 17–84 | ||
|
| - | 0.9 | ||
|
| 20.3 | - | ||
|
| 6.9–7.1 | 4.8–6.0 | ||
|
| 1.98 | 1.33 | ||
aMolar mass calculated from the protein sequence
bThe S20,w value remained constant across the concentration range tested.
cThe weight averaged molecular weight derived from the best fit C(S) function.
dThe range of the rms deviations observed when data were fitted using a continuous sedimentation coefficient distribution model.
eThe equilibrium dissociation constant calculated from a monomer-dimer self-association model.
fThe weight averaged molecular weight from Global SE analysis using a species analysis model.
gThe range of the rms deviations observed for each multi-speed sample when fitted individually to the appropriate model.
hThe global reduced chi-squared for the global fit to the appropriate model.