| Literature DB >> 32244508 |
Elizabeth A Vuono1,2, Elizabeth Ramirez-Medina2,3, Keith Berggren1, Ayushi Rai1,4, Sarah Pruitt1,4, Ediane Silva1,5, Lauro Velazquez-Salinas1,5, Douglas P Gladue1, Manuel V Borca1.
Abstract
Interactions between the major structural glycoprotein E2 of classical swine fever virus (CSFV) with host proteins have been identified as important factors affecting virus replication and virulence. Previously, using the yeast two-hybrid system, we identified swine host proteins specifically interacting with CSFV E2. In this report, we use a proximity ligation assay to demonstrate that swine host protein CCDC115 interacts with E2 in CSFV-infected swine cells. Using a randomly mutated E2 library in the context of a yeast two-hybrid methodology, specific amino acid mutations in the CSFV E2 protein responsible for disrupting the interaction with CCDC115 were identified. A recombinant CSFV mutant (E2ΔCCDC115v) harboring amino acid changes disrupting the E2 protein interaction with CCDC115 was produced and used as a tool to assess the role of the E2-CCDC115 interaction in viral replication and virulence in swine. CSFV E2ΔCCDC115v showed a slightly decreased ability to replicate in the SK6 swine cell line and a greater replication defect in primary swine macrophage cultures. A decreased E2-CCDC115 interaction detected by PLA is observed in cells infected with E2ΔCCDC115v. Importantly, animals intranasally infected with 105 TCID50 of E2ΔCCDC115v experienced a significantly longer survival period when compared with those infected with the parental Brescia strain. This result would indicate that the ability of CSFV E2 to bind host CCDC115 protein during infection plays an important role in virus replication in swine macrophages and in virus virulence during the infection in domestic swine.Entities:
Keywords: CSFV; classical swine fever; swine fever viruses
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32244508 PMCID: PMC7232474 DOI: 10.3390/v12040388
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048
Figure 1Interaction between CSFV E2 and CCDC115 in CSFV-infected cells demonstrated by proximity ligation assay (PLA). Images were visualized at 40X magnification. SK6 cells (A) or primary swine macrophages (B) that were either mock infected (Mock) or infected for 24 h with CSFV parental BICv or recombinant E2ΔCCDC115v (MOI = 10) as described in Materials and Methods. Panel B (on the right), quantification of the decrease in the E2-CCDC115 interaction in swine macrophages infected with either BICv or E2ΔCCDC115v, error bars represent the average and standard deviation from from the counting of three independent counts of 100 cells. *** p-value < 0.0008.
Figure 2Yeast two-hybrid reactivity of E2 and E2ΔCCDC115. The indicated plasmids were transformed into the yeast strain AH109 and spotted on the left on -Trp/-Leu plates for plasmid selection and on the right on selective media -Trp/-Leu/-Ade/-His. C7orf64, HPRT1 and CDC115 are expressed with the activation domain for the yeast two-hybrid in the pgADT7 vector. pgADT7 is used as a negative control. E2 W/T, Lam and E2∆CDC115 are expressed with the binding domain for the yeast two-hybrid. Lam is used as a negative control.
Figure 3In Vitro growth characteristics of CSFV E2ΔCCDC115v. Multistep growth curve of E2ΔCCDC115v and BICv error bars represent the average and standard deviation for the titers of hree independent experiments on (A) SK6 cells and (B) swine macrophage cell cultures. Cell cultures were infected (MOI of 0.01) with CSFV BICv (empty symbols) or E2ΔCCDC115v (filled symbols). At indicated times post-infection, samples were collected and titrated for virus yield. Data are means and the bars represent the standard deviation of three independent experiments. Significant differences (*) in viral yields in SK-6 cells and macrophages between both viruses at specific times points were determined using the Holm–Sidak method (α = 0.05), without assuming a consistent standard deviation. All calculations were conducted on the software GraphPad Prism version 8. (C) Plaque formation of CSFV E2ΔCCDC115v and BICv on SK6 cell cultures. Cell cultures were infected with either virus, overlaid with 0.5% agarose, incubated at 37 °C for 4 days, fixed with 50% (v/v) ethanol/acetone, and stained by immunohistochemistry as described in Materials and Methods.
Swine survival and fever response in animals infected with mutant E2ΔCCDC115v compared with those infected with parental BICv.
| Fever | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment (1) | No. of Survivors/Total | Mean Time to Death | No. of Days to Onset | Duration; | Maximum Daily Temp |
| BICv | 0/5 | 7 (0) | 5.2 (0.84) | 1.8 (0.84) | 40.01 (0.17) |
| CSFV E2ΔCCDC115v | 0/5 | (0.89) | 8.6 (0.89) | 1.6 (0.89) | 40.62 (0.18) |
(1) All animals were intranasally (IN) inoculated with 105 TCID50 of the indicated virus.
Figure 4Evolution of mortality (A) and body temperature (B) in animals (five animals/group) IN infected with 105 TCID50 of either E2ΔCCDC115v (filled symbols) or parental BICv (open symbols). Significant differences (*) in rectal temperatures between both groups of pigs infected with each virus at specific times post-infection were determined using the Holm–Sidak method (α = 0.05) without assuming a consistent standard deviation. All calculations were conducted on the software GraphPad Prism version 8.
Figure 5Concentration of circulating white blood cells (A), lymphocytes (B) and platelets (C) in animals IN infected with 105 TCID50 of either E2ΔCCDC115v (filled symbols) or parental BICv (open symbols). Results represent the average and the standard deviation values of all animals in the group at the given time point. No significant differences were found between both groups of pigs at any time point using the statistical methodology described in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Figure 6Virus titers in blood samples obtained from animals IN infected with 105 TCID50 of either E2ΔCCDC115v (filled symbols), or parental BICv (open symbols). Values are expressed as log10 TCID50/mL and error bars represent the average and the standard deviation of titers of all animals in the group at the given time point. Sensitivity of virus detection: ≥ 101.8 TCID50/mL. No significant differences were found between both groups of pigs at any time point using the statistical methodology described in Figure 3 and Figure 4.