Investigation of HIV-1 Gag binding with RNAs and lipids using Atomic Force Microscopy.

Atomic Force Microscopy was utilized to study the morphology of Gag, ΨRNA, and their binding complexes with lipids in a solution environment with 0.1Å vertical and 1nm lateral resolution. TARpolyA RNA was used as a RNA control. The lipid used was phospha-tidylinositol-(4,5)-bisphosphate (PI(4,5)P2). The morphology of specific complexes Gag-ΨRNA, Gag-TARpolyA RNA, Gag-PI(4,5)P2 and PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-Gag were studied. They were imaged on either positively or negatively charged mica substrates depending on the net charges carried. Gag and its complexes consist of monomers, dimers and tetramers, which was confirmed by gel electrophoresis. The addition of specific ΨRNA to Gag is found to increase Gag multimerization. Non-specific TARpolyA RNA was found not to lead to an increase in Gag multimerization. The addition PI(4,5)P2 to Gag increases Gag multimerization, but to a lesser extent than ΨRNA. When both ΨRNA and PI(4,5)P2 are present Gag undergoes comformational changes and an even higher degree of multimerization.

Introduction

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a retrovirus with a diploid genome of single-stranded RNA [1-4]. Two types of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2, have been reported [5]. HIV is a spherical membrane-bound virus with a diameter ranging from 100 nm to 150 nm. The formation of infectious HIV is considered to have three stages: (1) assembly, (2) budding and release, and (3) maturation [1, 6–8]. In the first assembly stage the components are encapsulated to create the immature virion at the plasma membrane. In the second budding and release stage, the immature virion forms its lipid envelope and buds from the plasma membrane. The last maturation stage is where the immature virion undergoes conformational changes to form the mature infectious virus. In all these three stages, the most important structural component of HIV is the genetic polyprotein precursor Gag. The HIV immature virion has about 2500–5000 copies of the Gag polyprotein [1, 3]. The approximate mass of Gag is 55kDa [8]. Extended Gag is thought to have a cylindrical shape with a length of 20-30nm and a diameter of 2-3nm [2]. From N-terminus to C-terminus, Gag consists of six structural domains: a matrix (MA) domain with amino-terminal myristylation (Myr), a capsid (CA) domain, spacer peptides 1 (SP1), a nucleocapsid (NC) domain, spacer peptides 2 (SP2), and a p6 domain, respectively [1, 6,7, 9]. The three primary functional domains of the Gag are MA, CA and NC. The HIV Gag precursor in the immature virion is radially oriented [1]. The N-terminal MA domain is bound to the inner leaflet of the lipid membrane. The C-terminal NC domain binds with two copies of viral genomic RNA. The CA domain interacts with each other forming a hexagonal lattice. In the final stages, the HIV virion becomes mature using a viral protease that cleaves the Gag in a specific order as discussed in Ref. [10].

The MA domain of HIV-1 Gag with 104 amino acids exhibits five alpha helices and a triple-stranded beta sheet [11-13]. MA has a myristoylated fatty acid group at its N-terminus which is responsible for Gag assembly and targets to the phospha-tidylinositol-(4,5)-bisphosphate (PI(4,5)P2) on the lipid membrane [14,15]. The 14-carbon myristoylated group is initially sequestered in a hydrophobic cleft of the MA domain, but is later exposed and facilitates Gag binding with the lipid membrane. The exposure of the myristyl acid group is activated by PI(4,5)P2 which is abundant in the plasma membrane. The CA domain which is responsible for Gag-Gag interaction is separated into two parts, the N-terminal domain (CANTD) and the C-terminal domain (CACTD) connected by a flexible linker. The arrowhead-like shaped CANTD containing seven alpha helices is essential for the formation of a conical outer shell of the capsid core [16, 17]. The CANTD forms hexameric rings with an approximate spacing of around 8 nm as observed with cryo-electron microscopy (cET) [18, 19]. The CA domain plays a crucial role in the formation of both immature and mature virions. In the mature virus, the mature capsid core consists of 1000–1500 copies of the CA protein assembled into a hexameric lattice with a spacing of 10 nm rather than 8nm which is the spacing of CA hexamers in the immature virions [3]. The NC domain is critical for the genomic viral RNA recognition, interaction and dimerization. The NC domain binds Gag to the RNA genome through nonspecific interaction as well as specific binding to the stem-loop 3 (SL3) in the packaging signal Ψ (ΨRNA) [20]. In the inner core of the mature virus, the viral genomic RNA is wrapped around 1500–2000 copies of NC proteins [21]. Within the NC domain, there are two CCHC type zinc fingers, which are crucial for specific ΨRNA binding and genomic viral RNA packaging [22, 23, 24].

HIV-1 genome is a RNA sequence that has 9173 nucleotides [9, 25]. It is central to many steps of the replication process, such as transcription, genomic dimerization, HIV genome packagingetc. At the 5’ untranslated region (UTR) of HIV-1 genomic RNA, there are many critical regions which are thought necessary for genome dimerization and binding with Gag: the transactivation response stem-loop (TAR), the polyadenylation stem-loop (polyA), the prime binding site (PBS) and the packaging signal domain Ψ. Of the 104 nucleotides of HIV viral RNA, the first 1–57 nucleotides is TAR with 58–104 nucleotides being polyA [26, 27]. The mass of the TARpolyA RNA is around 34kDa. The TARpolyA RNA sequence used in the experiments is shown in Fig 1A [22]. It plays an essential role in HIV genome packaging and reverse transcription [26]. In addition to the dimerization initiation site (DIS) in Ψ, the TAR may also facilitate HIV genomic RNA dimerization when the NC protein is present to form TAR-TAR dimers [28]. The packaging signal Ψ contains about 109 nucleotides [26, 29]. The mass of the ΨRNA is about 36kDa. The ΨRNA sequence used in our work is shown in Fig 1B where most of nucleotides are paired with each other [26]. It contains 3 stem loops SL1, SL2, and SL3. SAXS studies show that ΨRNA adopts an unfolded conformation where all stem loops are open for later interaction with both viral and host elements. The ΨRNA binds with the NC protein and is crucial for packaging of HIV genomic RNA. Within ΨRNA, SL1 contains a palindromic sequence DIS that is responsible for HIV genomic RNA dimerization and Gag binding [30-32]. SL2 includes the splice donor site (SD) that is used to produce spliced message RNAs. SL3 is required for both viral RNA dimerization and packaging [33]. In addition to SL1, SL3 is also a high affinity Gag binding site [34].

Fig 1

RNA sequences used.

HIV-1 genomic RNA partial sequence constructs used in this work. (A) TARpolyA RNA. (B) ΨRNA.

PI(4,5)P2 belongs to the negatively charged lipid family known as phosphoinositide [35]. It consists of a glycerol backbone with one saturated fatty acid chain at position 1’ and one unsaturated fatty acid chain at position 2’ and a phosphoinositol headgroup at position 3’. PI(4,5)P2 serves as a raft for HIV-1 Gag targeting to the plasma membrane and thus regulates the HIV assembly [35, 36]. In particular, PI(4,5)P2 binds with the myristylated MA domain of Gag through a highly specific interaction. First, the phosphoinositol headgroup and the 2’ unsaturated fatty acid chain of PI(4,5)P2 insert into a hydrophobic pocket in the MA domain. This then triggers the exposure of the myristylated group for insertion into the lipid bilayer membrane [37-40]. Previous research has suggested that Gag has distinct binding modes with different RNAs [22]. For non-specific TARpolyA RNA, both the NC and MA domains are bound to TARpolyA RNA. While in the case of specific ΨRNA, only the NC domain was found to bind with ΨRNA [22]. In the latter case, MA domain is left free for later interaction with lipid PI(4,5)P2. The motivation of this work is to utilize a high-resolution technique such as Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) to explore HIV-1 Gag binding with different RNAs and lipids. First, we studied the morphology of individual components of Gag, ΨRNA, and TARpolyA RNA separately as controls. Next, to see the effect of the addition of specific and non-specific RNAs, we investigated the effect on the Gag complex formation by adding either ΨRNA or TARpolyA RNA to Gag. Then, the effect of adding lipid PI(4,5)P2 into Gag was also studied. Finally, the influence of the addition of both ΨRNA and PI(4,5)P2 was examined to understand their collective effect on Gag.

Materials and methods

Materials

HIV-1 Gag used in our experiments was obtained from Dr. Alan Rein and Dr. S.A.K. Datta. It lacks the myristylated group and p6 and thus usually is referred to as GagΔP6 [22]. Both ΨRNA and TARpolyA RNA were obtained from Dr. Karin Musier-Forsyth and Dr. E.D. Olson [36]. Brain PI(4,5)P2 (L-α-phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate) was purchased from Avanti Polar Lipids (Alabaster, AL, US).

Preparation of samples

HIV-1 GagΔP6 was originally at 30μM in the buffer containing 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 0.5 M NaCl, 10% (v/v) glycerol, 5 mM DTT (dithiothreitol). It was diluted to 0.5μM before AFM imaging with HEPES buffer, which contained 20mM, HEPES (pH 7.5), 1mM MgCl2, 50mM NaCl, 10μM TCEP (tris-2-carboxy-ethyl phosphine) 5 mM βME (β-mercaptoethanol). ΨRNA and TARpolyA RNA were originally in the same HEPES buffer at a concentration of 74.18μM and 119μM, respectively. Both RNAs need to be refolded before use. The protocol followed for refolding RNA was as follows. First, 22.2μL 74.18μM ΨRNA (or 13.8uL 119μM TARpolyA RNA) was added to a clean vial. Next, 2.5μL 1M(PH 7.5) HEPES was added into the vial. Then, 20.3μL DEPC-H2O (or 28.7μL for TARpolyA RNA) was added. The temperature of the mixture was then raised to 80°C for 2 minutes, followed by 60°C for another 2 minutes using a water bath. Finally, 5μL 0.1M MgCl2 was added into the vial. Next, the mixture was kept at 37°C for 5 minutes followed by 0°C with ice for 30 minutes. The RNA could then be used immediately or stored at 4°C for later use up to a week. After applying the refolding protocol, 30μM RNAs were diluted to 0.5μM using the same HEPES buffer before AFM imaging. Brain PI(4,5)P2 purchased in powder form was dissolved in distilled water to 1 mM concentration before use. For mixtures, the mixed solutions were obtained such that the final concentration of each component was 0.5μM.

Mica substrates

Atomically smooth mica substrates were used in all AFM imaging experiments reported here. Mica substrates with 1cm diameter were obtained from Ted Pella Inc. (Redding, CA, USA). The scotch tape technique was used to obtain freshly cleaved surfaces used in all experiments. The surface roughness was measured to be 0.1~0.2nm. The clean mica surface is negatively charged with charge density σ = -0.33C/m2 in air and σ = -2.5mC/m2 in water [41-43]. Therefore, freshly cleaved raw mica is a perfect substrate for AFM imaging of HIV GagΔP6 because of its positive charge. However, as both ΨRNA and TARpolyA RNA are negatively charged they cannot be observed directly on the raw mica substrate. To overcome the repulsion between mica and RNAs, the mica surface was made positive by functionalization with APTES (3-aminopropyltriethoxy silane). The procedure of preparing APTES-treated mica was as follows. First, double-sided tape was used to stick a 10mm in diameter mica upon an AFM metal specimen disc with a diameter of 15mm. Second, Scotch tape was used to cleave mica until the mica surface was complete and flat. Then, 100μL APTES was added into a small plastic petri dish and put at the bottom of a desiccator with a plastic net onto which the freshly cleaved mica was placed. The dessicator was next evacuated with a mechanical vacuum pump. The vacuum suction was maintained for 30 minutes to allow APTES to evaporate. APTES treated mica was ready to use immediately or can be stored in a covered petri dish for later use. 30~50μL of the desired sample solution was next deposited on the freshly cleaved mica (or APTES treated mica for RNAs) before AFM imaging. When imaging the various complexes GagΔP6 formed, we always mixed the components in the appropriate molar ratio and then incubated the solution for 3 hours in order to confirm that the different distributions of the complexes have reached equilibrium before the solution was introduced to the AFM fluid cell containing the mica substrate. In addition, the same freshly cleaved mica substrate was used for the investigating all the Gag complexes: GagΔP6, GagΔP6/RNA, GagΔP6/ PI(4,5)P2 and GagΔP6/RNA/ PI(4,5)P2. Thus it is valid to make a comparison of the changes in the morphologies or population statistics of monomers, dimers and tetramers with the addition of RNA or PI(4,5)P2 to GagΔP6 in solution. During imaging on the mica substrate, no dynamical evolutions of the complexes were observed.”

AFM

Calibration of the AFM probes had to be done before imaging. The size of the AFM cantilever tip was similar to that of the proteins or protein complexes studied. The comparable tip size will lead to feature broadening, which is a common type of widely known convolution effect [44]. The major factors with respect to the feature broadening are the pyramidal geometry and curvature radius of the tip. The AFM probe used (HI’RES-C19/CR-AU, MikroMasch USA, Watsonville, CA, USA) was 125μm long and 22.5μm wide with a spring constant of 0.5N/m. it had a nominal resonant frequency of 65kHz in air and a ~32.36kHz in liquid. The special tips used had high aspect ratio and small tip radius. Nevertheless, the tip size still had to be taken into account when analyzing the sizes of HIV GagΔP6, RNAs, lipids and their mixed complexes. The calibration was done as follows. 2nm gold spheres were used to calibrate AFM probes due to the comparability of the heights of HIV GagΔP6 and two RNAs. Because the measured sample size also depends on the height of the sample, the actual tip size is given by Eq (1) (see Supplementary Material for more details):

Where λ is the actual diameter of the AFM cantilever tip, L is the measured size of the sample, and D is the height of the sample. The effective tip diameter t for any sample is the difference between measured size of the calibration standard sample and the height of the sample, as given by Eq (2) (see Supplementary Material for more details):

For the 2nm gold spheres, after fitting to a normal distribution, the mean measured size L = 7.56 ± 0.09nm, the mean height D = 2.10 ± 0.02nm which is the actual diameter of the 2nm gold particle, as shown in Fig 2. The total number of samples was 419 and the experiment was repeated twice. Therefore, the actual diameter is λ = 4.5nm according to Eq (1). The effective tip size for HIV GagΔP6 and other GagΔP6 complexes, including GagΔP6-ΨRNA, GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2, PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6, is t = 5.4nm given that the measured height of HIV GagΔP6 is 1.9nm according to Eq (2). Similarly, the effective tip size for ΨRNA and TARpolyA RNA is t = 5.0nm given that the measured height of both RNAs is 1.1nm.

Fig 2

Calibration of AFM cantilever tip.

AFM tip resolution calibration with 2nm diameter Au Sphere. (A) A typical AFM image of 2nm Au sphere on mica in tapping mode in liquid. The scan size is 250nm×250nm. The height color bar scale is 2.5nm. (B) Histogram of 2nm diameter Au sphere for the measured size on the plane of the substrate (top) and the measured height (bottom). Shown in red are normal distribution fits to the peaks. The mean measured size on the plane of the substrate is 7.56 ± 0.09 nm, and the mean height is 2.10 ± 0.02nm. The height is consistent with the sphere diameter. The size in the plane of the substrate reflects the role of the tip size. Please see text and supplemental materials section for more details. The total number of samples was 419 and the experiment was repeated twice.

The AFM Nanoscope IIIa (Veeco Metrology, Santa Barbara, CA, USA) was used in tapping mode. The procedure of the AFM operation in tapping mode in liquid environment is as follows [45]. First, a freshly cleaved mica (or APTES treated mica for RNAs) was mounted on the AFM metal specimen holder using double-sided tape. Next, a 30~50μL drop of following sample solutions used in the experiment was deposited on the mica: (I) ΨRNA (0.5μM), (II) TARpolyA RNA (0.5μM), (III) GagΔP6 (0.5μM), (IV) mixture of PI(4,5)P2-DPhPC-POPC (0.5μM : 5μM : 5μM) complex, (V) mixture of GagΔP6-ΨRNA (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex, (VI) mixture of GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex, (VII) mixture of GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex, (VIII) and mixture of PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 (0.5μM : 0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex. Next the cantilever probe was mounted into the fluid cell. Care was taken to make sure there are no bubbles. The tip is completely immersed in the solution. This is critical for laser alignment when operating the AFM in a liquid environment. Next the laser signal was aligned and then the piezo was oscillated through a range of frequencies till the resonance frequency was found. Next the best resolution was obtained by adjusting the following scanning parameters: the vertical range, samples/line, scan size, scan rate, integral gain, proportional gain and amplitude setpoint etc. Additional checks were made after engaging the cantilever. During imaging the amplitude setpoint was adjusted such that the trace and retrace lines were matched. The force exerted on the sample should be as small as possible to prevent samples from being damaged. All the aforementioned parameters had to be adjusted collectively to achieve the best resolution.

Results and discussion

As RNAs have been well studied with the AFM [46-50], they were used to benchmark the experiments reported here. The self-assembly of the CA domains in Gag and its mechanical properties have been recently investigated on a mica substrate with the AFM [51]. The CA domain was found to assemble in a hexagonal lattice and have self repair capacity after damage was induced [51]. In the AFM experiments here, we started with size and morphology measurements of the RNAs (ΨRNA and TARpolyA RNA) to benchmark and validate the measurement and analysis software developed. Independent calibration of the measurement resolution was done using 2nm Au spheres as discussed above. After confirmation of the validity of the technique we performed measurements on GagΔP6 and its complexes with RNAs and PI(4,5)P2 lipid. The summary of the results is provided in Table 1. All the experiments were repeated twice. Below we present the results from each individual experiment and also discuss the effect of the RNA and PI(4,5)P2 lipid interaction with GagΔP6.

Table 1

Statistics of AFM measurement of GagΔP6, RNAs and their complexes.

		Percentage	Length/nm	Width/nm	Height/nm
ψRNA	Monomer	74% ± 2%	17.9 ± 0.2	1.01 ± 0.02	1.10 ± 0.01
	Dimer	26% ± 2%	34.6 ± 0.3	3.8 ± 0.1
TARpolyA RNA	Monomer	100%	17.1 ± 0.2	1.10 ± 0.05	1.10 ± 0.01
GagΔP6	Monomer	59% ± 3%	10.3 ± 0.1	6.2 ± 0.1	1.93 ± 0.01
	Dimer	35% ± 2%	20.0 ± 0.2
	Tetramer	6% ± 1%	29.0 ± 0.3	12.9 ± 0.2
GagΔP6-ψRNA	Monomer	35% ± 2%	10.6 ± 0.2	6.8 ± 0.1	1.90 ± 0.01
	Dimer	49% ± 2%	22.4 ± 0.1
	Tetramer	16% ± 1%	31.2 ± 0.2	13.8 ± 0.1
GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA	Monomer	58% ± 3%	10.8 ± 0.1	6.2 ± 0.1	1.93 ± 0.01
	Dimer	37% ± 2%	20.7 ± 0.2
	Tetramer	5% ± 1%	29.9 ± 0.3	13.6 ± 0.2
GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2	Monomer	47% ± 2%	11.2 ± 0.1	6.7 ± 0.1	1.93 ± 0.01
	Dimer	41% ± 2%	21.1 ± 0.1
	Tetramer	12% ± 1%	30.4 ± 0.2	14.0 ± 0.2
PI(4,5)P2-ψRNA-GagΔP6	Monomer	17% ± 1%	10.9 ± 0.3	7.4 ± 0.2	1.91 ± 0.01
	Dimer	51% ± 3%	23.8 ± 0.2
	Tetramer	32% ± 2%		22.1 ± 0.2

ΨRNA size and morphology measurements

ΨRNA (0.5μM) being negatively charged was imaged on positively charged APTES treated mica. Another motivation for measuring the ΨRNA by itself is to understand its individual morphology for future comparison with that observed in the various GagΔP6 complexes. A typical AFM image of ΨRNA was shown in Fig 3A. In Fig 3A, the AFM image of ΨRNA shows that most of ΨRNA molecules seem to have inverted “L” shape. As shown in Fig 3B and in Table 1, the mean height is 1.10 ± 0.01nm. This height is in between the values 0.5nm, 2.5, 2.6nm found from double-stranded RNA [28,48,52] and similar to 0.9~1.2nm that found by Hansma et al. [53]. The lateral size of the image was analyzed using specially developed software analysis (see Supplementary Material for more details). The statistics of the length (longest dimension) and width (longest perpendicular dimension to the length) and height were plotted in Fig 3Bb. As can be observed there are two distinct peaks for the length and similarly two distinct peaks for the width. The three dimensional smooth histogram of the same length and width population distribution is shown in Fig 3C. Two distinct populations can be observed. The size of the first distribution with a mean length of 17.9 ± 0.2nm and width 1.01 ± 0.02nm and height of 1.10 ± 0.01nm corresponds to the ΨRNA monomer. The second peak with a mean length of 34.6 ± 0.3nm and width 3.8 ± 0.1nm and height of 1.10 ± 0.01nm corresponds to the ΨRNA dimer. Typical images of the monomer and dimers are enclosed in red and green boxes respectively.

Fig 3

ΨRNA size and morphology with AFM.

0.5μM ΨRNA on positively charged mica(+). (A) A typical AFM image with a scan size of 500nm×500nm. The height color bar scale is 2.0 nm. A few characteristic ΨRNAs are shown in boxes: monomer (red) and dimer (green). (B) Histogram for length (left), width (middle), and height (right). Shown in red are normal distribution fits to the peaks. (C) Three dimensional smooth histogram, where red arrows indicate monomer and dimer. The mean height is 1.10 ± 0.01nm. The first peak with a mean length of 17.9 ± 0.2nm and width 1.01 ± 0.02nm corresponds to the ΨRNA monomer. The second peak with a mean length of 34.6 ± 0.3nm and width 3.8 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the ΨRNA dimer. The total number of samples was 551 and the experiment was repeated twice.

The expected size of the 109-nucleotide ΨRNA monomer can be calculated from the literature. RNAs most commonly adopt either A-form or A'-form conformation [54, 55]. A-form RNA has 11 nucleotide per helical pitch and A'-form has 12 nucleotide per helical pitch [55]. The rise per base pair for the A-form and A'-form are 0.38nm and 0.27nm, respectively [56]. Given that most of ΨRNA nucleotides are self-paired with each other as shown in Fig 1B, ΨRNA should be double-stranded with 55 base pairs. This leads to a length of 20.9nm and 14.9nm for the A-form and A'-form respectively. These values are consistent with the mean measured monomer length 17.9nm. The width of ΨRNA monomer is 1.01 ± 0.02nm consistent with the height of ΨRNA. For the monomer the width and heights will be the same as it is cylindrical in shape. The mean measured length of ΨRNA dimer is 34.6 ± 0.3nm, which is approximately twice as long as that of ΨRNA monomer. This means ΨRNA dimer consists of two ΨRNA monomers connecting head to head overlap. The width of ΨRNA dimer is roughly 3.8 ± 0.1nm that is much larger than two times the width of ΨRNA monomer. This is probably due to some overlap of the two RNA’s on dimerization. This conclusion is reasonable based on the results from Refs. [30-32] and the potential overlap region is the palindromic DIS base pair region located in the SL1 loop of ΨRNA as shown in Fig 1B. Next the population distribution between monomers and dimers was analyzed. The length and width histograms in Fig 3B were fit to a normal distribution. Both histograms lead to a population distribution of 74% monomer and 26% dimer respectively.

TARpolyA RNA size and morphology measurements

TARpolyA RNA (0.5μM) being negatively charged was also imaged on positively charged APTES treated mica. Similar to ΨRNA, the motivation for measuring TARpolyA RNA by itself is to benchmark the experiments and analysis protocol as well as understand its individual morphology for comparison with that observed in the various GagΔP6 complexes. The observed typical AFM image of TARpolyA RNA in the buffer solution is shown in Fig 4. In Fig 4A, TARpolyA RNA image shows that most of TARpolyA RNA molecules seem to have inverted “L” shape just like ΨRNA. Some examples are shown enclosed in red boxes. The size distribution of the length (longest dimension), width (longest perpendicular dimension to the length) and the height are shown in Fig 4B. As shown in Fig 4B and in Table 1, the mean height of TARpolyA RNA is 1.10 ± 0.01nm. This height is consistent with that of ΨRNA and expectations from structure. In Fig 4B and 4C we observe only one peak in the length and width distributions. The mean length of the TARpolyA RNA monomer is 17.1 ± 0.2nm. This value is slightly less than that of the ΨRNA monomer observed earlier. Similar to ΨRNA, TARpolyA RNA should also be doubled-stranded as shown in Fig 1(A). Thus the slightly smaller length of 0.8nm is reasonable from the 5 fewer nucleotides, given that ΨRNA contains 109 nucleotides while TARpolyA RNA has only 104 nucleotides. It is noteworthy that the width histogram distribution of TARpolyA RNA is 1.10 ± 0.05nm which is the same as the height and consistent with the cylindrical structure for TARpolyA RNA. As the length and width distribution have only one observable peak, it is concluded that the TARpolyA exists in solution predominantly as a monomer. This is unlike that observed with ΨRNA where 26% dimers were found.

Fig 4

TARpolyA RNA size and morphology with AFM.

0.5μM TARpolyA RNA on positively charged mica(+). (A) AFM image with a scan size of 500nm×500nm. The height color bar scale is 2.0nm. A few characteristic TARpolyA RNAs are boxed in red. (B) Histogram for length (left), width (middle), and height (right). Shown in red are normal distribution fits to the peaks for length and height. Width is fit to a gamma distribution due to its non-negativity and skewness. (C) Three dimensional smooth histogram, where the red arrow indicates the monomer distribution. The peak corresponding to the TARpolyA RNA monomer has a mean length of 17.1 ± 0.2nm, width of 1.10 ± 0.05nm and height of 1.10 ± 0.01nm. The total number of samples was 504 and the experiment was repeated twice.

GagΔP6 size and morphology measurements

The morphology of GagΔP6 (0.5μM), being net positive charge, was measured using the AFM on a freshly negatively charged mica(-) substrate in solution. A typical AFM image is shown in Fig 5A. The motivation for measuring GagΔP6 is to serve as a control before addition of RNAs and lipids. Some characteristics of common shapes observed were shown in red, green and blue boxes. In Fig 5A, the AFM image of GagΔP6 shows that most of GagΔP6 molecules have ellipsoidal shape rather than the expected rod-like shape of the extended molecule.

Fig 5

GagΔP6 size and morphology with AFM.

0.5μM GagΔP6 on negatively charged mica(-). (A) A typical AFM image with a scan size of 500nm×500nm. The height color bar scale is 2.5nm. A few characteristic GagΔP6s are boxed: monomer (red), dimer (green) and tetramer (blue). (B) Histograms for length (left), width (middle), and height (right). Shown in red are normal distribution fits to the peaks. (C) Three dimensional smooth histogram, where red arrows indicate the monomer, dimer, and tetramer distributions. The mean height is 1.93 ± 0.01nm for all three. The first peak with a mean length of 10.3 ± 0.1nm and width 6.2 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6 monomer. The second peak with a mean length of 20.0 ± 0.2nm and width 6.2 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6 dimer. The third peak with a mean length of 29.0 ± 0.3nm and width 12.9 ± 0.2nm corresponds to the GagΔP6 tetramer. The total number of samples was 858 and the experiment was repeated twice.

As shown in Fig 5B and Table 1, the mean height is 1.93 ± 0.01nm which is consistent with the expectation that the diameter of Gag is around 2~3nm when it is in the extended form as reported in Ref. [4]. The length and width of the observed images are plotted in Fig 5B. As observed three peaks were observed in the length distribution but only two peaks in the width distribution. Normal distributions were fit to the length histogram to find peak mean values of 10.3 ± 0.1nm, 20.0 ± 0.2nm and 29.0 ± 0.3nm. Similarly the mean values of the two width distributions were found to be 6.2 ± 0.1nm and 12.9 ± 0.2nm respectively.

It might seem counterintuitive to have three distinct peaks for length while having only two distinct peaks for the width. To have more insight, a three dimensional smooth histogram of the same length-width data was plotted as shown in Fig 5C. The shortest length and width distribution would correspond to that of the monomer and the distribution with the next larger length would be expected to correspond to that of the dimer. From Fig 5C the monomer and dimer have the same width. Thus in the width distribution histogram they are represented together and correspond to the first peak at 6.2 ± 0.1nm. The statistical analysis of the population also confirmed this assumption as the first peak of the width histogram is the sum of monomer and dimer populations in the two peaks of the length histogram as given in Table 1. This analysis was done by fitting each length and width peak to a normal distribution. From the length distribution, the percentages of monomer, dimer, and tetramer are 59%, 35%, and 6%, respectively. The population observed in the monomer and dimer from the length adds up to that observed in the first peak of the width distribution.

Previous studies using hydrodynamic and neutron scattering measurements showed HIV GagΔP6 is supposed to adopt a compact conformation such that MA and NC domains of GagΔP6 are close to each other even though both of them are positively charged [3–5, 57]. The hydrodynamic radius, R, of GagΔP6 given by three different hydrodynamic tests are 3.6nm, 3.8nm, and 4.1nm, respectively. The radius of gyraton, R, of GagΔP6 is best estimated to be 3.4nm from small angle neutron scattering (SANS). The R of GagΔP6 when it is a 25nm straight rod is supposed to be 7.2nm [57]. The average R of GagΔP6 in solution measured by SANS is also a monotonically increasing function of the GagΔP6 concentration, with maximum of R = 5nm at extremely high concentration, which means GagΔP6 molecules are in monomer-dimer equilibrium [57].

Based on the AFM studies presented above, we can project approximate confirmations based on the various lengths and widths of the populations observed. For the case of the monomer given a length of 10.3nm and width of 6.2nm a potential “C” like shape can be conjectured. A schematic of a potential monomer structure is shown in Fig 6. In neutron scattering and hydrodynamic experiments [4] the Gag was observed to be folded over, with its N-terminal MA domain near its C- terminal NC domain in three-dimensional space. The conjectured model in Fig 6 is consistent with the measurements of the folded Gag monomer expected in solution and the AFM size measurements. The conjectured model in Fig 6 is also consistent with that of a fully extended Gag having a rod-like shape of 2 nm radius and 20–30 nm length postulated in the literature [2]. For the case of the Gag dimer, based on the AFM measured dimensions of a length of 20.0 nm and width of 6.2 nm (same as monomer) a model of the GagΔP6 dimer would have two “C” shaped monomers connected back to back through their CA-CA domain interaction [4]. The CA-CA domain interaction leading to dimerization has been reported in the literature [4]. The last population size distribution of GagΔP6 in Fig 5(C) has a length of 29.0nm and width is 12.9nm. This population from gel electrophoresis corresponds to that of a tetramer (see Supplemental Material). From the measured size of the tetramers here, they could be potentially formed by the interaction of two dimers.

Fig 6

Model of GagΔP6 morphology.

Rough model of the GagΔP6 monomer based on the measured mean values of the length and width. MA domain is in red, CA domain is in yellow, and NC domain is in green.

GagΔP6-ΨRNA complex size, morphology and interaction

AFM measurements of the GagΔP6-ΨRNA (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex were done on negatively charged mica(-). The motivation for measuring GagΔP6-ΨRNA complex is to investigate the effect of addition of specific ΨRNA to GagΔP6. According to current models the NC domain binds with ΨRNA and this interaction is specific and is a critical step in the formation of HIV [22]. Fig 7A is a typical AFM image of GagΔP6-ΨRNA complex. As shown in Fig 7B, the mean height of GagΔP6-ΨRNA complex is 1.90 ± 0.01nm which is roughly the same as the height of just GagΔP6 discussed earlier. This height is consistent with expectation given that the height of GagΔP6 and ΨRNA are 1.93nm and 1.10nm, respectively. The length and width histograms of the complexes observed are shown in Fig 7B. Similar to GagΔP6, GagΔP6-ΨRNA also has three peaks for length and two peaks for width. Normal distributions were fit to the length histogram to find peak mean values of 10.6 ± 0.2nm, 22.4 ± 0.1nm and 31.2 ± 0.2nm. Similarly the mean values of the two width distributions were found to be 6.8 ± 0.1nm and 13.8 ± 0.1nm respectively. The size of the length and widths are slightly larger than that found with only GagΔP6. This is consistent with attachment of ΨRNA of around 1nm to the GagΔP6.

Fig 7

GagΔP6-ΨRNA interaction complex size and morphology.

The mixture of GagΔP6-ΨRNA (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex on negatively charged mica(-). (A) A typical AFM image with a scan size of 500 nm×500 nm. The height color bar scale is 2.5nm. A few characteristic GagΔP6-ΨRNA complexes are boxed: monomer (red), dimer (green) and tetramer (blue). (B) Histogram for length (left), width (middle), and height (right). Shown in red are normal distribution fits to the peaks. (C) Three dimensional smooth histogram, where red arrows indicate monomer, dimer, and tetramer. The mean height is 1.90 ± 0.01nm for all three complexes. The first peak with a mean length of 10.6 ± 0.2nm and width 6.8 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-ΨRNA monomer. The second peak with a mean length of 22.4 ± 0.1nm and width 6.8 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-ΨRNA dimer. The third peak with a mean length of 31.2 ± 0.2nm and width 13.8 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-ΨRNA tetramer. The total number of samples was 895 and the experiment was repeated twice.

To understand the role of the ΨRNA addition the three-dimensional population distribution of the length and width as shown in Fig 7C was analyzed. As with GagΔP6, three peaks corresponding to monomer, dimer and tetramer complexes were observed. However the population distributions of the monomer, dimer and tetramer are different for the GagΔP6- ΨRNA complex. Here we observed 35% monomer, 49% dimers and 16% tetramers. In contrast with only GagΔP6 we observed 59% monomers 35% dimers and 6% tetramers. The monomer decreased by 24%, the dimer increased by 14% and the tetramer increased by 10%. Thus the addition of ΨRNA promotes multimerization of the GagΔP6 leading to higher populations of dimers and tetramers.

The length of monomer remained roughly the same as prior to the addition of ΨRNA. The lengths of dimer and tetramer were increased by about 2nm. The width increased by about 0.5nm~1nm for the monomer, dimer, and tetramer. This is consistent with the addition of ΨRNA of around 1nm to this dimension. The most important conclusion of the effect of the addition of ΨRNA to GagΔP6 is that ΨRNA can bind with GagΔP6 and facilitate GagΔP6 multimerization given the increases in percentages of dimer and tetramer population.

GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA complex size, morphology and interaction

GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex was measured on a negatively charged mica(-) surface. The motivation for measuring GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA complex is to verify the effect of the addition of non-specific TARpolyA RNA to GagΔP6 and compare it to the addition of specific ΨRNA discussed above. Fig 8A is a typical AFM image of GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA complex. As shown in Fig 8B, the mean height of GagΔP6-ΨRNA complex is 1.93 ± 0.01nm.

Fig 8

GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA interaction complex size and morphology.

Mixture of GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex on negatively charged mica(-). (A) A typical AFM image with a scan size of 500nm×500nm. The height color bar scale is 2.5nm. A few characteristics TARpolyA RNA complexes are boxed: monomer (red), dimer (green) and tetramer (blue). (B) Histogram for length (left), width (middle), and height (right). Shown in red are normal distribution fits to the peaks. (C) Three dimensional smooth histogram, where monomer, dimer, and tetramer are indicated by red arrows. The mean height is 1.93 ± 0.01nm for all three complexes. The first peak with a mean length of 10.8 ± 0.1nm and width 6.2 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA monomer. The second peak with a mean length of 20.7 ± 0.2nm and width 6.2 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA dimer. The third peak with a mean length of 29.9 ± 0.3nm and width 13.6 ± 0.2nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA tetramer. The total number of samples was 766 and the experiment was repeated twice.

To understand the role of the TARPolyA RNA interaction with GagΔP6 the three dimensional population distribution of the length and width as shown in Fig 8C was analyzed. As with GagΔP6, three peaks corresponding to monomer, dimer and tetramer complexes were observed. However in contrast to the case of the GagΔP6-ΨRNA complex in Fig 7C the population distribution of monomer, dimer and tetramer are very similar to that of GagΔP6 alone observed in Fig 5C. The sizes of GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA complex monomer, dimer and tetramer were found slightly larger than that of GagΔP6 alone. Thus the addition of TARPolyA RNA might interact with GagΔP6 but does not promotes multimerization of the GagΔP6 as observed with ΨRNA. These experiments were repeated and the results were always reproducible. Webb et al. reported HIV Gag can bind with both ΨRNA and TARpolyA RNA but with distinct binding mechanisms [22]. They proposed that HIV GagΔP6 binds with TARpolyA RNA through both MA and NC domains whereas ΨRNA binds only through NC domain and leaves MA domain free to later interact with the lipid membrane. Other studies also showed that HIV GagΔP6 can bind with both ΨRNA and non-Ψ RNAs but the selective binding with ΨRNA is more energetically favorable than other non-Ψ RNAs for HIV virus assembly [58-60]. The role of the RNA in multimerization of the Gag was not addressed in these studies. The conclusion based on our data is that it is highly likely that HIV GagΔP6 interacts with ΨRNA and TARpolyA RNA through different mechanisms such that ΨRNA facilitates GagΔP6 multimerization while TARpolyA RNA does not.

GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 Complex Size, Morphology and Interaction

The GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex was measured on negatively charged mica(-). The Gag and lipid were diluted to 1μM before mixing. Then, equal amounts of Gag and lipid were mixed. The AFM measurement was performed after the mixture was incubated for 3 hours. A typical AFM image is shown in Fig 9A. The motivation for measuring GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 complex is to explore the effect of addition of lipid PI(4,5)P2 to GagΔP6. The current understanding is that both MA and NC domains of Gag can bind to PI(4,5)P2 through electrostatic forces.

Fig 9

GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 interaction complex size and morphology.

Mixture of GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 (0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex on negatively charged mica(-). (A) A typical AFM image with a scan size of 500nm×500nm. The height the color bar scale is 2.5nm. A few characteristic GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 complexes are boxed: monomer (red), dimer (green) and tetramer (blue). (B) Histogram for length (left), width (middle), and height (right). Shown in red are normal distribution fits to the peaks. (C) Three dimensional smooth histogram, where monomer, dimer, and tetramer are indicated by red arrows. The mean height is 1.93 ± 0.01nm for all complexes. The first peak with a mean length of 11.2 ± 0.1nm and width 6.7 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 monomer. The second peak with a mean length of 21.1 ± 0.1nm and width 6.7 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 dimer. The third peak with a mean length of 30.4 ± 0.2nm and width 14.0 ± 0.2nm corresponds to the GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 tetramer. The total number of samples was 903 and the experiment was repeated twice.

As shown in Fig 9B(b), the mean height of GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 complex is 1.93 ± 0.01nm that is roughly the same as the height of just GagΔP6. This height is consistent with expectation given the small size of PI(4,5)P2 in comparison to GagΔP6. The length and width histograms of the complexes observed are shown in Fig 9B. Similar to GagΔP6, GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 also has three peaks for length and two peaks for width. Normal distributions were fit to the length histogram to find peak mean values of 11.2 ± 0.1nm, 21.1 ± 0.1nm and 30.4 ± 0.2nm. Similarly the mean values of the two width distributions were found to be 6.7 ± 0.1nm and 14.0 ± 0.2nm respectively. The size of the length and widths are slightly larger than that with only GagΔP6. In comparison to the GagΔP6-ΨRNA complex the GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 complex has monomers of slighter larger length while the dimers and tetramers are of slightly smaller length.

To understand the role of PI(4,5)P2 addition to GagΔP6 the three dimensional population distribution of the length and width as shown in Fig 9C was analyzed. As with GagΔP6, three peaks corresponding to monomer, dimer and tetramer complexes were observed. However the population distribution of monomer, dimer and tetramer are different from that observed with GagΔP6 alone or for the GagΔP6- ΨRNA complex. Here we observed 47% monomer, 41% dimers and 12% tetramers. In contrast with only GagΔP6 we observed 59% monomers 35% dimers and 6% tetramers and for the GagΔP6- ΨRNA complex we observed 35% monomer, 49% dimers and 16% tetramers. Thus the addition of PI(4,5)P2 promotes multimerization of the GagΔP6. The increases in percentages of dimer and tetramer indicate that PI(4,5)P2 can bind with GagΔP6 as reported in other studies using confocal microscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance and equilibrium flotation assay [35, 40, 61–65]. But the increase in GagΔP6 multimerization with the addition of PI(4,5)P2 is less than that observed with ΨRNA. The length and width of monomer, dimer, tetramer all increased by about 1nm. This is probably because of the size of PI(4,5)P2 attached to the ends of both MA and CA domains of HIV GagΔP6.

PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 complex size, morphology and interaction

The PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 (0.5μM : 0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex was measured on a negatively charged mica(-). According to the prevailing model the lipid interacts with the MA domain of GagΔP6-ΨRNA complex leading to a conformational change [22]. In these experiments to study the PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 complex, PI(4,5)P2 and ΨRNA were first mixed together in solution followed by the addition of GagΔP6. This mixture was then used to measure the size and size distribution using the AFM.

Fig 10A is a typical AFM image of PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 complex. As shown in Fig 10B, the mean height of PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 complex is 1.91 ± 0.01nm that is roughly the same as the height of just GagΔP6. This height is consistent with expectation given that the height of GagΔP6 and ΨRNA-GagΔP6 discussed earlier. The height of PI(4,5)P2 is much smaller by comparison. The length and width histograms of the complexes observed are shown in Fig 10B. In contrast to GagΔP6, GagΔP6-ΨRNA and the GagΔP6- PI(4,5)P2 complexes there are only two peaks for length and two peaks for width. Normal distributions were fit to the length histogram to find peak mean values of 10.9 ± 0.3nm, and 23.8 ± 0.2nm. Similarly the mean values of the two width distributions were found to be 7.4 ± 0.2nm and 22.1 ± 0.2nm respectively. In comparison to the binary complexes studied earlier the monomer length is approximately similar, while the monomer width is slightly larger. For the dimer, the length is almost 60% larger than that of GagΔP6-ΨRNA and the GagΔP6- PI(4,5)P2 binary complexes.

Fig 10

PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 interaction complex size and, morphology.

Mixture of PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 (0.5μM : 0.5μM : 0.5μM) complex on negatively charged mica(-). (A) A typical AFM image with a scan size of 500nm×500nm. The height color bar scale is 2.5nm. A few characteristic PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 complexes are boxed: monomer (red), dimer (green) and tetramer (blue). (B) Histogram for length (left), width (middle), and height (right). Shown in red are normal distribution fits to the peaks. (C) Three dimensional smooth histograms, where monomer, dimer, and tetramer are indicated by red arrows. The mean height is 1.91 ± 0.01nm for all three complexes. The first peak with a mean length of 10.9 ± 0.3nm and width 7.4 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 monomer. The second peak with a mean length of 23.8 ± 0.2nm and width 7.4 ± 0.1nm corresponds to the PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 dimer. The third peak with a mean length of 23.8 ± 0.2nm and width 22.1 ± 0.2nm corresponds to the PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 tetramer. The total number of samples was 616 and the experiment was repeated twice.

To understand the PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 complex the three dimensional population distribution of the length and width as shown in Fig 10C was analyzed. In contrast to all others above, here the dimer and tetramer have the same length. The width of the tetramer is much larger than all previous cases, increasing from 13-14nm to 22nm. Thus in the PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 complex the GagΔP6 undergoes a dramatic conformational change. This is consistent with the GagΔP6 MA and NC domains moving further away from each other and taking on a rod-like confirmation. From the population distribution in Fig 10C, we observed 17% monomer, 51% dimers and 32% tetramers. In contrast, with only GagΔP6 were we observed 59% monomers 35% dimers and 6% tetramers, the multimerization has increased considerably. Comparing to the populations in the binary mixtures of ΨRNA-GagΔP6 and PI(4,5)P2-GagΔP6 were we observed 35% and 47% monomer, 49% and 41% dimers and 16% and 12% tetramers respectively, here in particular we observe much higher percentage of tetramers. Thus the addition of PI(4,5)P2 along with ΨRNA promotes not only the dimerization of the GagΔP6 but in particular the multimerization to tetramers and higher order complexes. In addition, the significant change of the size indicates that GagΔP6 undergoes some conformational changes when both ΨRNA and PI(4,5)P2 are present [38, 66]. Based on the sizes measured a schematic of the dimer and tetramer structure is proposed in Fig 11. From the size of the tetramers the spacing between the GagΔP6 molecules is around 7 nm close to the value of 8nm reported in studies using cET [18,19]. The substantial increases in the percentages of dimer and tetramer indicate that both ΨRNA and PI(4,5)P2 can bind with GagΔP6 and collectively facilitate HIV GagΔP6 assembly as reported in other studies [57, 63].

Fig 11

Model of PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 interaction complex.

Rough models of PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 complexes based on the measured mean height and width. (a) Dimer complex, (b) Tetramer complex. MA domain is in red, CA domain is in yellow, NC domain is in green, ΨRNA is in cyan, and PI(4,5)P2 is in purple.

Conclusion

The AFM technique was utilized to study the morphology of GagΔP6 (0.5μM), ΨRNA (0.5μM), and their binding complexes with the lipid PI(4,5)P2 in HEPES buffer with 0.1 Å vertical and 1nm lateral resolution. For the calibration 2nm diameter Au spheres were used. TARpolyA RNA was used as a negative RNA control. The morphology of specific complexes GagΔP6-ΨRNA (0.5μM : 0.5μM), GagΔP6-TARpolyA RNA (0.5μM : 0.5μM), GagΔP6-PI(4,5)P2 (0.5μM : 0.5μM) and PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA- GagΔP6 (0.5μM : 0.5μM : 0.5μM) were studied. They were imaged on either positively charged or negatively charged mica substrates depending on the net charges carried by the respective materials. The size and morphology of both ΨRNA and TARpolyA RNA measured was used to validate the technique in comparison with literature. For the ΨRNA, from the measured size two distinct populations corresponding to monomers and dimers were observed. In the case of TARpoly A RNA only the monomer population was found for the concentrations studied. The morphology of GagΔP6, being net positively charged, was measured using the AFM on a freshly cleaved negatively charged mica(-) substrate in HEPES solution with a low salt concentration of 50mM NaCl. Three distinct size populations were found. They were found to correspond to 59% monomer, 35% dimer and 6% tetramer form of GagΔP6. The presence of the multimers was confirmed by gel electrophoresis. The addition of ΨRNA to 0.5μM GagΔP6 was observed to promote multimerization of the GagΔP6 leading to higher populations of dimers (14% increase) and tetramers (10% increase). The small change in size of the complexes confirmed the binding of the ΨRNA to GagΔP6. The addition TARPolyA RNA to GagΔP6 did not modify the GagΔP6 population distribution of monomers, dimers and tetramers. The interaction of PI(4,5)P2 with GagΔP6 complex was next measured on negatively charged mica(-). From the population distribution of the monomers (47%), dimers (41%) and tetramers (12%), it was concluded that PI(4,5)P2 promotes multimerization of GagΔP6 but not to the extent observed with ΨRNA.

The PI(4,5)P2-ΨRNA-GagΔP6 ternary complex was next studied using a negatively charged mica(-) surface. Both the population and size distribution of the GagΔP6 was completely different from that of the GagΔP6-ΨRNA and the GagΔP6- PI(4,5)P2 binary complexes. The population distribution of the monomers (17%), dimers (51%) and tetramers (32%) was significantly different. Given the large fraction of dimers and tetramers it was concluded that the presence of both PI(4,5)P2 and ΨRNA promotes extensive multimerization of GagΔP6. In addition, the significant change of size indicates that GagΔP6 undergoes a conformational change to a 23.8nm rod like shape when both ΨRNA and PI(4,5)P2 are present. From the size of the tetramers the spacing between the GagΔP6 molecules is around 7 nm which is consistent with studies using cET in Ref [18, 19]. The substantial increases in the percentages of dimer and tetramer indicate that both ΨRNA and PI(4,5)P2 can bind with GagΔP6 and collectively facilitate HIV GagΔP6 assembly as reported using other techniques.

The gel electrophoresis data presented in the supplementary section for the GagΔP6, ΨRNA and PI(4,5)P2 lipid combinations provide complementary confirmation for the different complexes that are present in the same solution mixtures analyzed with the AFM. The size and population distribution measured for the various complexes are distinct and show changes for the complexes on the addition the ΨRNA and PI(4,5)P2 to the GagΔP6 solution.

Supporting information.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

12 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-27871

Investigation of HIV-1 Gag binding with RNAs and Lipids using Atomic Force Microscopy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript was reviewed by two experts in the field and both raised some concerns that need to be addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jamil S Saad, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Investigation of HIV-1 Gag binding with RNAs and Lipids using Atomic Force Microscopy” by Chen et al, focused to investigate the molecular structure of complexes involving Gag protein with its multiple targets including �-RNA, TAR polyA RNA and lipids PI(4,5)P2 by using Atomic force microscopy which provides direct visual information at the single molecule level. The size of individual components was also visualized and the presence of dimers, tetramers were observed in some cases. Although, the present study show some interesting indication of multimerization of Gag�P6 in presence of both PI(4,5)P2 and �-RNA, the following concerns should be clarified before publication:

1. The major concern in the whole study is how the authors identify the complexes in their AFM images (Fig 7-10)? The images of RNA have distinct linear shape. As soon as the protein is added the whole complex become spherical or globular. At this stage, it becomes really difficult to assign whether the complex is really formed or not. The measurement of height, length, width is not enough to characterize the complex formation. This drawback poses concern on the conclusion drawn from the data set shown in Fig 7-10.

To avoid this ambiguation, authors could make a construct where their specific RNA is attached at the end of double stranded DNA (~300 bp). In this construct, the advantage would be whenever the protein-RNA complex would be formed, it would show up as a feature containing a blob at the end of the dsDNA, where the RNA construct is situated. It would unambiguously show that the complex is formed, and further similar analysis could be done on those features.

Another possibility to avoid this concern is to perform AFM time-lapse imaging, where the RNA would be imaged first and then different proteins, lipids and their combination could be added to visualize the complex formation in situ. Unless these issues are clarified, it is difficult to comment on the conclusions.

2. Authors should elaborate on why the width of the �-RNA becomes double in the dimer. As the length of the RNA is increased the width value should remain the same.

3. Authors mentioned that the Gag�P6 is cylindrical in shape, whereas in AFM image they appeared spherical. The reason behind that should be clarified. They have provided the model in Fig. 6, but enough experimental evidence is missing.

4. How did the authors calculate the width for elongated complexes? Did they measure at three different regions and then average it?

5. Did the authors separate the excess lipids from the complexes? If free lipid were present lipid patches should be observed on the surface in Fig. 9.

6. Authors should compress the introduction section. The elaborate details of the Gag structure is not necessary rather the rationale of the present work should be mentioned clearly.

Reviewer #2: This is the review of the manuscript entitled “Investigation of HIV-1 Gag binding with RNAs and Lipids

using Atomic Force Microscopy” by Chen et al. In this manuscript the authors used solution AFM experiments to probe the multimerization and conformations of Gag in the presence of PIP2 and RNA. The authors show good resolution of the AFM using 2nm gold particles and go on to resolve ΨRNA as well as the TARpolyA RNA molecules absorbed to mica surfaces. They show a significant fraction of dimer ΨRNA absorbed on the mica and detect the U shaped conformation of Gag. I have found the study to be sufficiently rigorous and well presented, however there are important shortfalls that need to be addressed before the paper is accepted for publication.

Major issues:

1- It is not clear how quantification of dimer Ψ RNA was performed? Based on the definition of the width measurements presented in the supplementary materials, the dimers should have much larger widths than 4 nm.

2- When GagΔP6 is observed on mica, the histograms show Gag molecules with a diameter of ~6 nm and length of 10 nm, the dimers show diameter of 6nm and length of 20 nm. Analyzing the AFM image however, It didn’t look like the identified dimers are longer, instead they were showing a larger overall diameter. This was also true for the tetramers, the authors should explain this discrepancy

3- The authors are assuming that what they observed is a stoichiometric representation of the ingredients, however their method only shows topological features with no specificity. To be more specific, when the authors say they show PIP2-GagΔP6-RNA complexes, there is no independent verification that the blub they are looking at actually contains all those components. If the authors can provide independent verification of complexes it will significantly strengthen the study, otherwise the authors should rewrite and de-emphasize the stoichiometry of their complexes. In short, the way the paper now reads, it implies independent verification, where there is none.

4- Basic mutagenesis of Gag would have helped the study become a lot more interesting, for example the G2A mutant?

5- There needs to be a significant discussion about what the mica surfaces are doing in to skew the selection of molecules from solution, also Gag molecules typically interact with lipid bilayers, how is that effecting the experimental results has to be addressed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Dec 2019

Dear Editor:

Thank you for sending us the review reports and your positive feedback on the manuscript. We thank the reviewers for the careful reading and analysis of the manuscript. We agree with the reviewer #1 that size change alone is not sufficient to confirm binding. However, the goal in this manuscript was to study the change in the monomer/dimer/tetramer population statistics and structure of HIV Gag with the addition of RNA and the lipid PIP2, not just whether RNA binding alone has happened. The binding is itself is checked through gel electrophoresis. Following the suggestion of reviewer #1 we have compressed the introduction. We appreciate reviewer #2’s conclusion that the manuscript is “sufficiently rigorous and well presented.” We have provided answers to all the questions of both reviewers and added clarifications in the manuscript where necessary. The added sentences are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript file titled “Revised Manuscript With Track Changes” for the reviewers benefit. The complete response to the reviewers is uploaded. The requested original gel data is also uploaded as supporting information.

Sincerely

Umar Mohideen

For all Authors

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jan 2020

Investigation of HIV-1 Gag binding with RNAs and Lipids using Atomic Force Microscopy

PONE-D-19-27871R1

Dear Dr. Mohideen,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Jamil S Saad, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: My concerns have been sufficiently addressed with changes provided in this revision. I recommend publication of this article.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Siddhartha Banerjee

Reviewer #2: No

16 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-27871R1

Investigation of HIV-1 Gag binding with RNAs and Lipids using Atomic Force Microscopy

Dear Dr. Mohideen:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jamil S Saad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE