A new look at the origins of gibbon ape leukemia virus.

Is the origin of gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV) human after all? When GALV was discovered and found to cause neoplastic disease in gibbons, it stimulated a great deal of research including investigations into the origins of this virus. A number of publications have suggested that the GALV progenitor was a retrovirus present in one of several species of South East Asian rodents that had close contact with captive gibbons. However, there are no published retroviral sequences from any South East Asian species to support this view. Here we present an alternative hypothesis that the origin of GALV is a virus closely related to Melomys burtoni retrovirus, and that this virus infected human patients in Papua New Guinea from whom biological material was obtained or in some way contaminated these samples. This material we propose contained infectious MbRV-related virus that was then unwittingly introduced into gibbons which subsequently developed GALV infections.

A mutant retroviral receptor restricts virus superinfection interference and productive infection.

BACKGROUND: Both cell-free and cell-associated infection routes are important for retroviral dissemination. Regardless of the mechanism, the driving force of retroviral entry is the interaction between the viral envelope and its receptor. To date it remains unclear how decreased affinity of viruses for their receptors affects viral cell-free infection, cell-cell transmission, and spreading kinetics. We have previously characterized a mutant form of the amphotropic murine retrovirus receptor human phosphate transporter 2 (PiT2) wherein the single substitution of a glutamic acid for the lysine residue at position 522 of this receptor is sufficient to render it to function as a gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV) receptor. RESULTS: In this study we analyzed the binding affinity of the mutant receptor PiT2K522E and determined that it has a 1000 fold decreased GALV envelope binding affinity compared to the GALV wild type receptor. The decreased affinity does not restrict the initiation of cell-free GALV infection. The diminished binding affinity does, however, correlate with a decrease in the ability of GALV to spread in cells expressing this mutant receptor. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced ability of GALV to subsequently spread among cells expressing PiT2K522E is likely resulted from reduced cell-cell transmission, the decreased ability of PiT2K522E-expressing cells to establish superinfection interference, and attendant cytopathic affects.

Primate gammaretroviruses require an ancillary factor not required for murine gammaretroviruses to infect BHK cells.

BHK cells remain resistant to xenotropic murine retrovirus-related virus (XMRV) or gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV) infection, even when their respective receptors, Xpr1 or PiT1, are expressed. We set out to determine the stage at which viral infection is blocked and whether this block is mediated by a dominant-negative factor or the absence of a requisite ancillary factor. BHK cells bind neither XMRV nor GALV envelope proteins. BHK cells expressing the appropriate receptors bind XMRV or GALV envelope proteins. BHK cells can be infected by NZB-XMV(New Zealand Black mouse xenotropic murine virus)-enveloped vectors, expressing an envelope derived from a xenotropic retrovirus that, like XMRV, employs Xpr1 as a receptor, and also by vectors bearing the envelope of 10A1 murine leukemia virus (MLV), a murine retrovirus that can use PiT1 as a receptor. The retroviral vectors used in these analyses differ solely in their viral envelope proteins, suggesting that the block to XMRV and GALV infection is mediated at the level of envelope-receptor interactions. N-linked glycosylation of the receptors was not found to mediate resistance of receptor-expressing BHK cells to GALV or XMRV, as shown by tunicamycin treatment and mutation of the specific glycosylation site of the PiT1 receptor. Hybrid cells produced by fusing BHKXpr1 or BHKPiT1 to XMRV- or GALV-resistant cells, respectively, can mediate efficient XMRV or GALV infection. These findings indicate that BHK cells lack a factor that is required for infection by primate xenotropic viruses. This factor is not required for viruses that use the same receptors but were directly isolated from mice.

Reassessing the role of region A in Pit1-mediated viral entry.

The mammalian gammaretroviruses gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV) and feline leukemia virus subgroup B (FeLV-B) can use the same receptor, Pit1, to infect human cells. A highly polymorphic nine-residue sequence within Pit1, designated region A, has been proposed as the virus binding site, because mutations in this region abolish Pit1-mediated cellular infection by GALV and FeLV-B. However, a direct correlation between region A mutations deleterious for infection and loss of virus binding has not been established. We report that cells expressing a Pit1 protein harboring mutations in region A that abolish receptor function retain the ability to bind virus, indicating that Pit1 region A is not the virus binding site. Furthermore, we have now identified a second region in Pit1, comprising residues 232 to 260 (region B), that is required for both viral entry and virus binding. Epitope-tagged Pit1 proteins were used to demonstrate that mutations in region B result in improper orientation of Pit1 in the cell membrane. Compensatory mutations in region A can restore proper orientation and full receptor function to these region B mutants. Based on these results, we propose that region A of Pit1 confers competence for viral entry by influencing the topology of the authentic binding site in the membrane and hence its accessibility to a viral envelope protein. Based on glycosylation studies and results obtained by using N- and C-terminal epitope-tagged Pit1, region A and region B mutants, and the transmembrane helices predicted with the PHD PredictProtein algorithm, we propose a new Pit1 topology model.

Fusion-defective gibbon ape leukemia virus vectors can be rescued by homologous but not heterologous soluble envelope proteins.

Murine leukemia virus (MLV)-derived envelope proteins containing alterations in or adjacent to the highly conserved PHQ motif present at the N terminus of the envelope surface subunit (SU) are incorporated into vector particles but are not infectious due to a postbinding block to viral entry. These mutants can be rendered infectious by the addition of soluble receptor-binding domain (RBD) proteins in the culture medium. The RBD proteins that rescue the infectivity of these defective MLV vectors can be derived from the same MLV or from other MLVs that use distinct receptors to mediate entry. We have now constructed functional immunologically reactive gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV) envelope proteins, tagged with a feline leukemia virus (FeLV)-derived epitope tag, which are efficiently incorporated into infectious particles. Tagged GALV envelope proteins bind specifically to cells expressing the phosphate transporter protein Pit1, demonstrating for the first time that Pit1 is the binding receptor for GALV and not a coreceptor or another type of GALV entry factor. We have also determined that GALV particles bearing SU proteins with an insertion C-terminal to the PHQ motif (GALV I(10)) bind Pit1 but fail to infect cells. Incubation with soluble GALV RBD renders GALV I(10) particles infectious, whereas incubation with soluble RBDs from MLV or FeLV-B does not. This finding is consistent with the results obtained by Lauring et al. using FeLV-T, a virus that employs Pit1 as a receptor but requires soluble FeLV RBD for entry. MLV and GALV RBDs are not able to render FeLV-T infectious (A. S. Lauring, M. M. Anderson, and J. Overbaugh, J. Virol. 75:8888-8898, 2001). Together, these results suggest that fusion-defective FeLV-T and GALV are restricted to homologous RBD rescue of infectivity.

Simian sarcoma-associated virus fails to infect Chinese hamster cells despite the presence of functional gibbon ape leukemia virus receptors.

We have sequenced the envelope genes from each of the five members of the gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV) family of type C retroviruses. Four of the GALVs, including GALV strain SEATO (GALV-S), were originally isolated from gibbon apes, whereas the fifth member of this family, simian sarcoma-associated virus (SSAV), was isolated from a woolly monkey and shares 78% amino acid identity with GALV-S. To determine whether these viruses have identical host ranges, we evaluated the susceptibility of several cell lines to either GALV-S or SSAV infection. GALV-S and SSAV have the same host range with the exception of Chinese hamster lung E36 cells, which are susceptible to GALV-S but not SSAV. We used retroviral vectors that differ only in their envelope composition (e.g., they contain either SSAV or GALV-S envelope protein) to show that the envelope of SSAV restricts entry into E36 cells. Although unable to infect E36 cells, SSAV infects GALV-resistant murine cells expressing the E36-derived viral receptor, HaPit2. These results suggest that the receptors present on E36 cells function for SSAV. We have constructed several vectors containing GALV-S/SSAV chimeric envelope proteins to map the region of the SSAV envelope that blocks infection of E36 cells. Vectors bearing chimeric envelopes comprised of the N-terminal region of the GALV-S SU protein and the C-terminal region of SSAV infect E36 cells, whereas vectors containing the N-terminal portion of the SSAV SU protein and C-terminal portion of GALV-S fail to infect E36 cells. This finding indicates that the region of the SSAV envelope protein responsible for restricting SSAV infection of E36 cells lies within its amino-terminal region.

Mutational analysis of the proposed gibbon ape leukemia virus binding site in Pit1 suggests that other regions are important for infection.

Region A of Pit1 (residues 550 to 558 in domain IV) and related receptors has remained the only sequence implicated in gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV) infection, and an acidic residue at the first position appeared indispensable. The region has also been proposed to be the GALV binding site, but this lacks empirical support. Whether an acidic residue at the first position in this sequence is a definitive requirement for GALV infection has also remained unclear; certain receptors retain function even in the absence of this acidic residue. We report here that in Pit1 an acidic residue is dispensable not only at position 550 but also at 553 alone and at both positions. Further, the virus requires no specific residue at either position. Mutations generated a collection of region A sequences, often with fundamentally different physicochemical properties (overall hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity and net charge of -1, or 0, or +1), and yet Pit1 remained an efficient GALV receptor. A comparison of these sequences and a few previously published ones from highly efficient GALV receptors revealed that every position in region A can vary without affecting GALV entry. Even Pit2 is nonfunctional for GALV only because it has lysine at the first position in its region A, which is otherwise highly diverse from region A of Pit1. We propose that region A itself is not the GALV binding motif and that other sequences are required for virus entry. Indeed, certain Pit1/Pit2 chimeras revealed that sequences outside domain IV are specifically important for GALV infection.

Chimeras of receptors for gibbon ape leukemia virus/feline leukemia virus B and amphotropic murine leukemia virus reveal different modes of receptor recognition by retrovirus.

Glvr1 encodes the human receptor for gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV) and feline leukemia virus subgroup B (FeLV-B), while the related gene Glvr2 encodes the human receptor for amphotropic murine leukemia viruses (A-MLVs). The two proteins are 62% identical in their amino acid sequences and are predicted to have 10 transmembrane domains and five extracellular loops. A stretch of nine amino acids (region A) in the predicted fourth extracellular loop was previously shown to be critical for the function of Glvr1 as receptor for GALV and FeLV-B. Glvr1 and -2 show clusters of amino acid differences in several of their predicted extracellular loops, with the highest degree of divergence in region A. Chimeras were made between the two genes to further investigate the role of Glvr1 region A in defining receptor specificity for GALV and FeLV-B and to map which regions of Glvr2 control receptor specificity for A-MLVs. Region A from Glvr1 was sufficient to confer receptor specificity for GALV upon Glvr2, with the same chimera failing to act as a receptor for FeLV-B. However, introduction of additional N- or C-terminal Glvr1-encoding sequences in addition to Glvr1 region A-encoding sequences resulted in functional FeLV-B receptors. Therefore, FeLV-B is dependent on Glvr1 sequences outside region A for infectivity. The receptor specificity of Glvr2 for A-MLV could not be mapped to a single critical region; rather, N-terminal as well as C-terminal Glvr2-encoding sequences could confer specificity for A-MLV infection upon Glvr1. Surprisingly, though GALV/FeLV-B and A-MLV belong to different interference groups, some chimeras functioned as receptors for all three viruses.