| Literature DB >> 34696383 |
Sai Priya Anand1,2, Jérémie Prévost1,3, Jade Descôteaux-Dinelle1,3, Jonathan Richard1,3, Dung N Nguyen4, Halima Medjahed1, Hung-Ching Chen5, Amos B Smith5, Marzena Pazgier4, Andrés Finzi1,2,3.
Abstract
To minimize immune responses against infected cells, HIV-1 has evolved different mechanisms to limit the surface expression of its envelope glycoproteins (Env). Recent observations suggest that the binding of certain broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) targeting the 'closed' conformation of Env induces its internalization. On the other hand, non-neutralizing antibodies (nNAbs) that preferentially target Env in its 'open' conformation, remain bound to Env on the cell surface for longer periods of time. In this study, we attempt to better understand the underlying mechanisms behind the differential rates of antibody-mediated Env internalization. We demonstrate that 'forcing' open Env using CD4 mimetics allows for nNAb binding and results in similar rates of Env internalization as those observed upon the bNAb binding. Moreover, we can identify distinct populations of Env that are differentially targeted by Abs that mediate faster rates of internalization, suggesting that the mechanism of antibody-induced Env internalization partially depends on the localization of Env on the cell surface.Entities:
Keywords: CD4; Env; Env conformation; HIV-1; broadly neutralizing antibodies; endocytosis; internalization; lipid microdomains; non-neutralizing antibodies
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34696383 PMCID: PMC8539245 DOI: 10.3390/v13101953
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.818
Figure 1Antibody-internalization of HIV-1 Env from the cell surface can be accelerated upon the selective opening of Env. (A–D) Cell surface staining of primary CD4+ T cells infected in vitro with (A) CH58 T/F virus, (B) JRFL WT virus, (C) CH58 T/F WT or L193A virus, and (D) CH58 T/F virus defective for Nef and Vpu expression was performed 48 h post-infection. (E,F) Primary CD4+ T cells from at least three different HIV-1-infected individuals were isolated and reactivated with PHA-L for 48 h, followed by incubation with IL-2 to expand the endogenous virus. Cell surface staining of endogenously infected primary CD4+ T cells was performed upon reactivation. (A–F) Antibody binding was detected using Alexa Fluor 647-conjugated anti-human secondary Abs. (Top) Quantification of remaining antibody–Env complexes on the cell surface over different timepoints is expressed as percentage of the MFI relative to the 0 min timepoint control. (Bottom) Areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated based on MFI data sets using GraphPad Prism software. Error bars indicate means ± the SEM. Statistical significance was tested using an unpaired t test or a Mann-Whitney U test based on statistical normality (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001; ****, p < 0.0001).
Figure 2Antibody-induced internalization of Env from the surface of transfected cells. (A) Cell surface staining of 293T cells transfected with plasmid encoding JRFL Env alone or together with an expressor of the human CD4 receptor was performed 48-h post-transfection. Ab binding was quantified at 0-, 60-, 120- and 180-min using flow cytometry. Histograms depict representative staining of transfected cells and untransfected (gray) with 17b or 19b Abs. (B,C) The 293T cells were transfected with a plasmid encoding JRFL Env alone or together with an expressor of the human CD4 receptor and were stained with (B) 19b conjugated with Alexa Fluor 647 or (C) 17b conjugated with Alexa Fluor 594 for confocal microscopy analyses to visualize internalization. Alternatively, staining with 17b-sCD4 was performed in combination with the goat anti-human IgG Alexa Fluor 594 secondary Ab. (B,C, Left panels) Images show the localization of antibody–Env complexes at different time points (0 and 120 min). Images represent a single confocal z-section through the middle of the cell; at least 25 cells were imaged per condition, and representative images are shown. Scale bar, 10 μm. (B,C, Right panels) The remaining cell surface antibody–Env complexes over different time points are expressed as percentages of the surface fluorescence relative to the 0 min time point control. Error bars indicate means ± the SEM. Statistical significance was tested using an unpaired t test or a Mann–Whitney U test based on statistical normality (**, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001). mCD4; membrane-anchored CD4.
Figure 3Differential localization of antibody–Env complexes visualized by lipid microdomain fractionation. The 293T cells were transfected with a plasmid encoding JRFL Env alone or together with an expressor of the human CD4 receptor and 48-h post-transfection all cell surface proteins were biotinylated. (A) Immunoprecipitation of cell surface biotinylated Env from cells transfected to express the (left) JRFL Env alone or (right) with the human CD4 receptor after incubation with 19b. Further, cell lysates were fractionated on a sucrose density gradient as described in Materials and Methods. (B) Equal volumes of individual fractions were resolved by SDS-PAGE, transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane, and probed with HRP-conjugated CTx-B to detect DRM marker ganglioside GM1 or with OKT-9 antibody to detect DSM marker CD71. (C–F) Immunoprecipitation of cell surface biotinylated Env from individual sucrose gradient fractions using (C) PGT151, (D) 19b, (E) 19b with 5μM BNM-III-170 from cells expressing the JRFL Env only and (F) 19b from cells expressing both the JRFL Env and human CD4 receptor. Values represent densities of respective band intensities quantified using ImageJ normalized to the bottom fractions. (B–F) Representative blots from at least three independent experiments are shown. mCD4; membrane-anchored CD4.