Abstract
Establishment of an infection cycle requires mechanisms to allocate the genomes of (+)-stranded RNA viruses in a balanced ratio to translation, replication, encapsidation, and movement, as well as mechanisms to prevent translocation of viral RNA (vRNA) to cellular RNA degradation pathways. The ratio of vRNA allocated to various functions is likely balanced by the availability of regulatory proteins or competition of the interaction sites within regulatory ribonucleoprotein complexes. Due to the transient nature of viral processes and the interdependency between vRNA pathways, it is technically demanding to work out the exact molecular mechanisms underlying vRNA regulation. A substantial number of viral and host proteins have been identified that facilitate the steps that lead to the assembly of a functional potyviral RNA replication complex and their fusion with chloroplasts. Simultaneously with on-going viral replication, part of the replicated potyviral RNA enters movement pathways. Although not much is known about the processes of potyviral RNA release from viral replication complexes, the molecular interactions involved in these processes determine the fate of the replicated vRNA. Some viral and host cell proteins have been described that direct replicated potyviral RNA to translation to enable potyviral gene expression and productive infection. The antiviral defense of the cell causes vRNA degradation by RNA silencing. We hypothesize that also plant pathways involved in mRNA decay may have a role in the coordination of potyviral RNA expression. In this review, we discuss the roles of different potyviral and host proteins in the coordination of various potyviral RNA functions.
INTRODUCTION
The replication cycle of positive-stranded (+)RNA viruses involves a chain of several partially overlapping events. The main steps of the replication cycle, namely entry, translation, replication, cell-to-cell movement, antiviral defense/counterdefense, and encapsidation (Figure 1), consist of several substeps and a complex regulatory interaction network. In addition to viral proteins, each viral process engages several cellular proteins with either pro- or antiviral functions and it locates to a certain subcellular structure into which the viral RNA (vRNA) and the viral and host proteins involved need to be transported. This review will look at recent developments in understanding the trafficking and functional coordination of potyviral genomes to various pathways in an infected cell (Figure 1; pathways 1–6). Potyviruses comprise a very large group of (+)RNA viruses that infect cultivated plants all over the world. Similarly to many other (+)RNA plant viruses, potyvirus infection exploits the protein synthesis machinery of the host in the production of viral proteins; it exploits the endomembrane and cellular secretion systems in the formation of viral replication complexes (VRCs) and plasmodesmata (PD) to enable the spread of the viral genome to other cells (reviewed in ).
FIGURE 1
Although many host factors have already been identified and linked to the RNA synthesis phase within VRCs (), the molecular details of postreplication events in plant RNA viruses are still mostly sparse. A significant investigative effort is required to elucidate the viral and host proteins involved. While vRNA is multiplying and spreading, it is simultaneously exposed to the virus-induced gene-silencing pathway and likely to some other cellular pathways regulating vRNA decay. Although many functional aspects of gene silencing in antiviral defense and viral counterdefense have been studied in detail (reviewed in ), cell biology studies describing the cellular structures where the antiviral defense and the viral counterdefense take place are lagging behind. Studies of eukaryotic cells have revealed an array of various RNA granules and RNA bodies regulating the host mRNA cycle, metabolism, and gene expression (), with various, but still not completely defined, functions in animal virus infections (reviewed in ). Similarly, various RNA granules and RNA bodies have been found to exist in plants (Weber et al., 2008; Xu and Chua, 2011; ), and these may well take part in the regulation of viral (+)RNA functions.
Recently, an interaction network of the Arabidopsis thaliana-potyvirus pathosystem, based on experimental reports was proposed (). The multiple interactions between viral components and viral and host proteins and between virus targets and their direct partners in this network give an idea of the complexity of the machinery required to coordinate a virus infection. Inevitably, more interactions remain to be found, with an interesting area of study being those required for coordination of potyviral RNA via the formation of ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes consisting of host and viral RNA-binding proteins (RBPs). Balanced partitioning of the vRNA substrates to the interdependent pathways competing for vRNA is required to ensure robust and productive infection. Due to the interdependent and sequential nature of the viral processes of (+)RNA virus infection, it is a challenging task to connect the exact step of the viral infection cycle to the correct host and viral RBPs involved.
FROM vRNA TRANSLATION TO REPLICATION
A prerequisite for replication and the starting point of the infection cycle within a single cell is the translation of viral proteins. The entry of potyviral RNA to initial translation may proceed via two separate routes. First, the virus may be delivered into the host cell from outside (e.g., in the stylet of an aphid). Its subsequent release in the cytoplasm leads to initiation of the replication cycle. Second, the virus may enter a neighboring healthy cell from a previously infected cell, allowing initiation of translation. The establishment of infection within a cell requires a sufficient amount of vRNA to enter the translational machinery without being degraded. Encapsidated potyviral RNA is covalently linked to the viral protein genome-linked (VPg; ), which may be required for protection of vRNA during the disassembly process prior to or during polysomal translation. Potyviruses employ a genome expression strategy based on the synthesis of a single polyprotein, which is then proteolytically processed to yield 10 individual proteins (reviewed in ). In such viruses, the structural and replication proteins are produced in an equimolar ratio. A certain part of the translation events from potyviral RNA leads to production of a shorter polyprotein due to translational +2 ribosomal frameshifting at the 5′terminal part of the P3 encoding gene (; ). This mechanism is used to produce an 11th potyviral protein called P3N-PIPO (pretty interesting potyviral protein, PIPO).
Potyviral (+)RNA serves as a template for both translation and replication. These two functions of vRNA are mutually exclusive, although the exact determinants responsible for the shift from translation to replication have yet to be identified for potyviruses. Interestingly, successful genome amplification and infection require that the translation of the Tobacco etch virus (TEV; genus Potyvirus) RNA proceeds to a certain position in the coat protein (CP) gene, which is followed by a cis-active replication element (). The authors suggested that this might provide a mechanism to ensure that only those RNAs that have retained the full open reading frame can be replicated. Recruitment of vRNA to VRCs is likely initiated via interactions of NIb, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase of potyviruses, and the secondary structures at the 3′UTR of potyviral RNA (). NIb is recruited to VRCs via its interaction with 6K2-VPg-Pro (; ). In addition to NIb and 6K2-VPg-Pro, double-stranded (ds)RNA and likely HC-Pro is localized to the potyviral VRCs, and cylindrical inclusion protein (CI) accumulates as spike-like structures in close proximity (; Wei et al., 2010; ). A genome-wide mutagenesis study indicated that most of the potyviral proteins provide essential functions for either genome replication or virion assembly (). Therefore, more viral proteins are likely to exist in VRCs.
(+)RNA viruses, including potyviruses, induce host membrane rearrangements connected to the recruitment of vRNA and replication-associated proteins to assemble VRCs (; ; ; ; ). The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane is thought to be the site of potyviral translation (Wei et al., 2010). From the ER, vRNA, together with replication proteins, is then captured to initiate replication. The formation of VRCs is initiated by the potyviral membrane spanning-protein 6K2 (), and ER exit sites (ERES) serve as the platform for the formation of potyviral replication vesicles (Wei and Wang, 2008). Components of the early secretory pathway, namely the Sar1 and Arf proteins, primers of the coat formation for the COP complexes COPII and COPI, respectively, are required for potyvirus propagation (Wei and Wang, 2008). The COPII components Sec23 and Sec24 colocalize with 6K2. As the infection proceeds, the 6K2-containing VRCs fuse with the chloroplast membranes (Wei et al., 2010) with the aid of an ER-derived fusion protein, Syp71 (Wei et al., 2013). The motility of the VRCs is dependent both on the COPII/COPI vesicle trafficking machinery and on the actomyosin system (Wei and Wang, 2008; Wei et al., 2010). Active potyviral replication has been proposed to take place in the chloroplasts, an idea that is supported by the presence of vRNA, dsRNA, and several viral replication proteins in chloroplast-associated VRCs (Wei et al., 2010). Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV; genus Potyvirus)-induced vesicles have been shown to contain or associate with several host proteins, many of which function in translation, namely eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E), eukaryotic elongation factor 1A (eEF1A), RNA helicase-like protein RH8, poly(A) binding-protein (PABP), and heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) (; ; ; ; ; ). At a later stage of infection, VRCs fused to chloroplasts start to aggregate into tubular structures. Finally, globular structures containing VRCs, chloroplasts, and ER and Golgi markers appear in the perinuclear area of the infected cell (). The latter authors suggested that this structure served as a virus factory, but it is not known how this late-forming structure relates to viral functions (e.g., replication and encapsidation).
The viral protein 6K2 alone is able to direct the formation of ER-derived vesicles, to target them to chloroplasts, and to cause chloroplast aggregation (Wei et al., 2013). As viral replication is not a prerequisite for the cascade leading to the aggregation of 6K2-containing vesicles, it is important to connect the functional replication in space and in time to the correct structures. When visualized with 6K2-GFP, TuMV VRCs were detected at the periphery of chloroplasts by 2 days (Wei et al., 2010, 2013), in VRC-chloroplast aggregations in 50% of infected cells by 3 days and in more than 85% of infected cells by 4 days after initiation of TuMV infection via Agrobacterium infiltration (Wei et al., 2013). Although VRC visualization by fluorescent labeling of the 6K2 and subsequent analysis by light microscopy gives a lot of information about the cell biology of potyvirus infection, it doesn’t allow conclusions about the timing of replication. When the timing of Potato virus A (PVA; genus Potyvirus) replication was tracked by quantitating viral gene expression with Renilla luciferase activity and RNA amounts by qRT-PCR a difference in these between wild type and replication-deficient PVA could be detected starting from day 2 after initiation of infection by Agrobacterium infiltration. By day 3 the virus had already spread and it had formed infection foci consisting of a substantial number of cells (; ; ). These data propose that potyvirus replication is active already at day 2 after Agrobacterium infiltration. Although replication and further translation may continue in individually infected cells simultaneously with the movement of vRNA to adjacent cells, many earlier investigations have shown that active potyvirus replication is a transient process (e.g., in Pea seed-born mosaic virus infection, PSbMV; genus Potyvirus) that takes place in a narrow cell layer at the infection front (Wang and Maule, 1995). A study in protoplasts transfected with Plum pox virus (PPV; genus Potyvirus) infectious cDNA (icDNA) showed that PPV (-)RNA accumulation reached the maximum at 12 h post-transfection and that RNA amounts decreased to less than 50% of the maximum by 24 h (). Therefore, it is feasible to assume that at a certain point of infection, active replication stops, and vRNA is targeted to postreplication functions.
Current understanding is that the replicated viral (+)RNA is released to the cytoplasm, whereas viral (-)RNA remains in the VRCs (). The spatiotemporal dynamics of the postreplication functions of vRNA in infection are complex. Seminal electron tomography (ET) studies of the Dengue virus and West Nile virus VRCs revealed high-resolution images of vesicle packages containing viral dsRNA and viral replication-related proteins with pore-like connections. These likely represent the sites from which the replicated RNA is released into the cytoplasm (Welsch et al., 2009; ). To be able to study the dynamics of the exchange of vRNA and proteins through VRC neck structures, information from high-resolution ET imaging should be combined with sophisticated techniques that allow real time live-cell imaging of vRNA. When such a combination of techniques was exploited to study trafficking of replicated RNA of the Tick-borne encephalitis virus from VRCs, released vRNA was found either to associate with ER membranes or to move freely within a defined area of juxtaposed ER cisterna (). Similar studies need to be carried out with potyviruses to understand how potyviral RNA is released for postreplication tasks. It is not known whether potyviral VRCs contain a neck structure, but it is feasible to assume that progeny (+)RNAs need to be released from VRCs for an infection to proceed. The only potyviral protein suggested to form pores in membranes is the viral genome-linked protein VPg (). This suggestion was based on EM images showing that pore-like structures formed in liposomes containing anionic phospholipids upon interaction with PVA VPg. We propose that PVA VPg could, hypothetically, form a positively charged channel for transportation of vRNA from VRCs, but this area remains to be studied.
FROM REPLICATION TO CELL-TO-CELL MOVEMENT
Plasmodesmatas are channels that connect the cytoplasm and the ER of two adjacent cells. Plant viruses take advantage of these channels in their cell-to-cell movement, utilizing specialized virus-encoded movement proteins to modify the PD and to target and move vRNA through the PD. Potyviruses encode several proteins, which have a direct role in movement, namely P3N-PIPO, CI, and CP (, ; ; Wei et al., 2010; Wen and Hajimorad, 2010). These proteins, in addition to vRNA, localize to PD (; ) where CI forms conical structures, which are anchored by P3N-PIPO to the PDs (Wei et al., 2010). CI mutants that are not able to support cell-to-cell movement of the potyviral genome cannot reach the PD (Wei et al., 2010). Targeting of CI to the PDs occurs via P3N-PIPO and involves the ER-Golgi secretory pathway. The actomyosin motility system is dispensable for PD localization of these proteins. An interesting feature in the formation of the conical CI structures is their transient nature. These structures were found in PSbMV-infected cotyledons only in the infection stage where active translation and replication take place (), suggesting that potyviral cell-to-cell movement occurs at an early stage of the infection process. A study following the fate of TuMV CI at different time points of infection reported similar findings (Wei et al., 2010). At a later stage of the infection process, CI aggregated in the cytoplasm into punctate spots. This suggests that at a certain point in the infection process, the cell-to-cell transport machinery is disassembled and cell-to-cell movement ceases.
Potyviral CP has a central role in the cell-to-cell transport of viruses. Assembly deficient TEV cannot support viral cell-to-cell movement (). The N-terminal domain of CP is important for the assembly of the Pepper vein banding virus (PVBV; ) and the cell-to-cell transport efficiency of TEV (). Phosphorylation of PVA CP regulates both its RNA-binding function () and viral spread in infected plants (). These results suggest that the capacity of CP to assemble is an important factor in the cell-to-cell movement of potyviruses. Therefore, the complexes inserted into PDs are likely either assembled virions or viral RNP complexes associated with CP. Both Potato virus Y (PVY) and PVA virions are asymmetric and contain a tip structure at the VPg-containing virion end (). A directional transport function for this structure was proposed and corroborated by the finding that CI, which is an essential cell-to-cell movement factor, associates with this structure (). In one model, it was proposed that CI associated with the virion tip could serve as the binding site for P3N-PIPO (). P3N-PIPO is capable of passing through the PD channel and interacting with the host protein PCaP1, a cation-binding protein localized to PD. speculated that the potyviral movement complex could be transported through the PD with the aid of the P3N-PIPO-PCaP1 interaction.
An interesting emerging scenario in the cell-to-cell movement of filamentous plant viruses is the close spatial and functional link between replication and movement (reviewed by ). A recent idea how potyviral RNA could reach PDs is that motile 6K2-containing vesicles enable vRNA transport to PDs. proposed a model in which the motile vesicles bud at ERES in perinuclear globular structures are trafficked along the ER/microfilaments to the PD. Interestingly, in the next paper from the same authors, it is shown that the motile vesicles derived from the perinuclear globular structures can even pass PD to the adjacent cells (). Whether this represents a mode of vRNA transport from cell to cell needs to be studied carefully, but it seems that the globular aggregates form after the conical CI-containing structures have been disassembled from the PDs (Wei et al., 2010). If coreplicational delivery of vRNA to PDs for intercellular movement purposes occurs in potyvirus infection, it likely should occur before the formation of the globular structures in the infection. The role of the intracellular transport machinery in intercellular movement of TuMV was recently demonstrated (). Both inhibitors of pre- and post-Golgi transport as well as silencing expression of myosin XI-2 and XI-K genes reduced intercellular TuMV movement () arguing for a role for motile vesicles in TuMV movement. If potyviral RNA is delivered to PDs within VRCs, the question remains as to how CP reaches the PD site and what is the composition of the complex passing through the PD and initiating the infection in the next cell. A possibility is that vRNA is released from motile VRCs at an early stage of the infection process in the vicinity of the PD. A movement complex could then form, with CPs assembling around the vRNA and CI associating with VPg to form the tip. This model shares similarities with another filamentous plant virus group, potexviruses. It was recently shown that Potato virus X (genus Potexvirus) VRCs gather and dock to the site of PDs (). vRNAs released from VRCs in the vicinity of PDs become partially encapsidated by CPs, and they are inserted into the PD channel with the aid of triple gene block 1 protein (TGB1), potexviral RNA helicase. Based on these data proposed a new model of plant viral movement and termed it as coreplicational insertion.
TARGETING OF REPLICATED vRNA TO NEW ROUNDS OF TRANSLATION/REPLICATION
The number of translation/replication cycles within a single infected cell is an interesting question. The production of progeny viruses may continue until the capacity of the host cell to provide energy, host factors, and host membranes has been fully exhausted by multiple rounds of VRC formation. Tight coupling between potyvirus replication and translation was proposed in two independent studies. Labeling of the TuMV 6K2 protein with two different fluorescent reporter proteins revealed that individual vesicles often carried only one single type of fluorescent label (). The authors interpreted this as evidence of intimate coupling between a single translated genome and its recruitment to the VRC, and they proposed vesicle-coupled viral translation to explain their observations (). Another study reported that PVA RNA translation ceases in the presence of a high cytoplasmic concentration of wild-type PVA CP but not in the presence of a mutant CP (CPmut), which is deficient in its RNA-binding and particle-formation capacity (). In spite of the cytoplasmic excess of wild type CP, PVA RNA encoding for the CPmut was translated. In this case the endogenous CPmut did not affect translation. The authors interpreted that the translation of replicated potyviral RNA likely occurred in an environment not accessible to a cytoplasmic excess of CP and only the endogenous CP could affect translation in this case. Because potyviral CP is able to cease viral gene expression, a mechanism to sequester CP away from the potyviral RNA translation and replication must exist. A study of PVY CP revealed a CP-interacting protein (CPIP) belonging to the family of heat shock protein 40 (HSP40) chaperones (). Further investigations revealed that CPIP is able to counteract CP-mediated inhibition of PVA gene expression (). These authors proposed a model where the delivery of CP via CPIP to HSP70 is utilized to sequester CP from vRNA to allow the vRNA to be translated and replicated until it is time to cease these functions.
Relatively little is known about the molecular determinants and dynamics of the coordination of replicated potyviral (+)RNA to new rounds of protein synthesis/replication. Similar to host mRNAs, vRNAs can be assumed to be associated with RBPs, which are required to protect the integrity of RNA, to suppress RNA degradation pathways, and to coordinate vRNA functions. Assuming that potyviral RNA is transported from VRCs in a similar manner to other (+)RNAs, one possible site for attachment of host proteins to viral RNP complexes is the moment when vRNA or its 5′end enters the cytoplasm. Interestingly, several host proteins that function in translation and/or mRNA regulation associate with (+)RNA VRCs. In the case of potyviruses, these include eIF(iso)4E, PABP, eEF1A, and RH8 (; ; ; ). A limitation in confocal microscopy is that it is not possible to identify the nature of the proteins associated with VRCs (e.g., integral components of the replication machinery or outer surface proteins waiting to target newly synthesized vRNA and transport it to its destination). One possibility is that the role of some of the proteins known to associate with VRCs is to regulate postreplication functions of vRNA, including replication-coupled translation (; ).
The determinants of efficient targeting of potyviral RNA in translation have long been discussed. At the heart of these discussions is the VPg -eIF4E/eIF(iso)4E interaction, which was discovered more than 15 years ago (Wittmann et al., 1997). This interaction is required for infectivity (), its absence is a source of recessive potyvirus resistance (reviewed in Wang and Krishnaswamy, 2012) and potyviral translation is among a number of possible roles that have been linked to it. The eIF4E–VPg interaction increases the affinity of eIF4E to eIF4G (). This may be beneficial for the assembly of the translation preinitiation complex. However, the translation of TEV RNA via a cap-independent mechanism is not dependent on eIF4E () but requires a 5′proximal pseudoknot structure on TEV RNA (Zeenko and Gallie, 2005) and eIF4G rather than eIF(iso)4G (; ). The interaction of VPg with the poly(A)-binding protein 2 () may be required to circularize vRNA for efficient translation. It has been proposed that the VPg molecule serves as a primer for the replication reaction catalyzed by the RNA polymerase NIb (). This suggestion is based on the finding that potyviral NIb is able to uridylylate VPg in a template-independent manner (; ). Therefore, the assumption is that the 5′end of the replicated RNA is covalently linked to VPg. This idea was further supported by the finding that encapsidated potyviral RNA contains VPg (). It is logical to think that the genome-linked VPg serves in translation functions. However, as discussed below, it is not clear whether this is the case.
Potyviral VPg appears to have a dual role in translation. Slight up-regulation of in vitro and in vivo translation has been observed in the presences of ectopically expressed VPg with monocistronic template RNAs containing potyviral 5′UTRs, whereas those containing non-homologous UTRs lead to inhibition of translation (; ). The inhibition of translation by in trans given VPg could be explained by VPg-mediated sequestration of eIF4E, reducing its availability for cellular functions. Interestingly, quantitation of PVA gene expression and RNA accumulation in a full infection model revealed that in trans given VPg boosts both of these in a concentration-dependent manner (). The translation of 5′UTR-lacking vRNA cannot respond to VPg, showing that viral 5′UTR has a central role in VPg-enhanced translation. However, the features of the PVA 5′UTR are not sufficient to explain these observations. The gene expression response of VPg to a construct with PVA 5′UTR in front of a reporter gene was found to be diminutive when compared to that of full-length PVA RNA (). Therefore, another still unidentified component of viral origin, either an RNA sequence element or a viral protein, must be required. VPg linked in cis to vRNA is not a requirement to achieve VPg-mediated enhanced translation because enhanced translation was detected with non-replicating PVA RNA. The relative level of enhancement was even higher for non-replicating RNA (). This is to be expected, given that excess VPg inhibits PVA movement (). We propose a tug-of-war model between translation/replication and movement that ensures the correct partitioning of PVA RNA among these two pathways (Figure 2). Increasing levels of VPg pull vRNA to translation, leading to concomitant down-regulation of cell-to-cell movement.
FIGURE 2
The host factors eIF4E/eIF(iso)4E and P0, a ribosomal protein, are involved in VPg-mediated up-regulation of PVA gene expression (; ). The acidic ribosomal protein P0 was identified as a component of the PVA membrane-bound RNP complex. A study of its role in PVA infection revealed a link between VPg-mediated enhancement of PVA RNA translation and P0 (). Silencing of P0 led to a significant defect in viral protein and RNA accumulation, whereas there was no delay in viral movement (), indicating that this host factor is essential in achieving robust and productive infection. The normal cellular function of P0 is that it is a component of the stalk structure associated with the 60S subunit of ribosomes (), and it plays an essential role in translation. In a study by , the other stalk proteins, P1–P3, found in plants (; ), were not present in a purified PVA RNP complex and did not contribute to VPg-mediated enhancement of PVA translation. In addition, similar to P0 silencing, eIF4E/(iso)4E silencing significantly reduced both vRNA accumulation and viral protein accumulation (). In two other studies, silencing of eIF4E led to potyvirus resistance (; Wang et al., 2013).
The mechanism of recessive resistance to potyviruses caused by incompatibility between eIF4E and eIF(iso)4E and potyviral VPg proteins has long been a puzzle. The resistance mechanism may be dependent on successful formation of an essential RNP complex because many potyviral proteins have the potential to overcome resistance conferred by translation initiation factors in various plants. In addition to the potyviral VPg (; ; ; ; ), amino acid changes in P1 (), P3 (), and CI () can combat the resistance. In vitro interactions between the Lettuce mosaic virus (LMV) VPg and helper-component- proteinase (HC-Pro), as well as LMV VPg and eIF4E of lettuce, have been identified (). Research also confirmed the need for eIF4G in LMV infection () and interactions between the C-terminus of CI with VPg and eIF4E (). The interaction network involving VPg, CI, eIF4E, and, possibly, HC-Pro and the translation initiation factor eIF4G were suggested to contribute to the resistance mechanism (). Interactions between potyviral HC-Pro and the initiation factors eIF4E and eIF(iso)4E were also demonstrated (). Among the proposed roles for eIF4E/(iso)4E in potyvirus infection are (i) recruitment of the translation initiation apparatus for vRNA translation, (ii) PD targeting of vRNA via VPg, eIF4E, CI, and eIF4G, and (iii) safeguarding virus translation/replication in the cytoplasm via an eIF4E, P1, VPg, and HC-Pro silencing suppressor complex (as reviewed in Wang and Krishnaswamy, 2012). Other possible mechanisms connected to the idea of safeguarding virus translation/replication are the role of VPg–eIF4E interaction in inhibition of cellular mRNA translation to the benefit of the virus and the targeting of vRNA to the virus-specific translational pathway via VPg, P0, eIF4E/(iso)4E and possibly other yet unidentified factors. Due to the central role of VPg, HC-Pro, CI, and eIF4E/(iso)4E in orchestrating the various functions of vRNA, it is feasible to think that a lack of correct interactions between translation initiation factors and these viral proteins may block vRNA access to many interdependent vRNA pathways.
Viral gene expression involves a delicate balance. Viral proteins need to be produced in a certain ratio to each other, and even slight alterations may lead to loss of infectivity. Non-structural replication proteins are often required in low amounts, whereas structural proteins need to be produced in massive amounts. As potyviruses employ a genome expression strategy based on polyprotein production, it is not immediately obvious how the regulation of viral protein production is achieved. As suggested by , one possibility is that the VPg-mediated translation pathway boosts vRNA translation in later stages of infection, thereby resulting in the production of a large amount of CP required for virion assembly (Figure 3). Such a suggestion is feasible, as conditions to support VPg-mediated translation pathway develop during infection. The more vRNA is translated: the more potyviral VPg is available. Some is transported to the nucleus in the form of NIa (; ), and some is retained in the cytoplasm for its cytoplasmic functions. PVA infection induces upregulation of P0 transcription (Vuorinen et al., 2010) and TuMV infection eIF4E expression (), and these proteins may therefore become abundant towards the end of the infection process. The mechanism underlying the cessation of potyvirus gene expression and the shift toward encapsidation needs further investigations.
FIGURE 3
STABILITY OF vRNA
The RNA silencing pathway has been shown to compete for potyviral RNA during infection (). RNA silencing is a defense mechanism against viruses (). The silencing pathway consists of initiation, amplification, and systemic spread phases. It is triggered by recognition of vRNA and results in the production of sequence-specific siRNA molecules and siRNA-mediated degradation of vRNA. To counteract RNA silencing, viruses encode for viral suppressors of RNA silencing (VSRs; reviewed in ). P1/HC-Pro, the VSR of potyviruses (; ; ), suppresses RNA silencing either by binding siRNAs () or interfering with siRNA methylation (). Under circumstances of compromised silencing suppression, the amount of TEV RNA is reduced to 17–26% and viral protein accumulation to 10–14% of that found in wild-type infection (), showing that potyviral RNA has a strong tendency to be directed to silencing pathways when no protection by HC-Pro is provided. Interestingly, PPV HC-Pro can be replaced functionally by some, but not all, unrelated VSRs (), suggesting that interchangeable VSRs share a suppression strategy that allows potyviral RNA to escape the RNA-silencing machinery. It is difficult to link siRNA production patterns directly to their bona fide antiviral activities in the presence of VSRs. The essential host factors responsible for RNA silencing in the regulation of potyvirus infection were revealed in a study where a loss-of-virulence phenotype caused by a silencing suppression-deficient HC-Pro mutant was rescued in an RNA-silencing deficient background (). The dicer-like protein DCL4 and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 1 (RDR1) and, to a lesser extent, DCL2 and RDR6 were found to be responsible for siRNA production and the antiviral response against TuMV infection in Arabidopsis. In agreement with this finding, in another study, down-regulation of RDR1 in transgenic tobacco led to enhanced PVY susceptibility (). Similarly, an essential role for the slicer enzyme Argonaute 2 (AGO2) in antiviral defense against TuMV was demonstrated with the aid of HC-Pro–deficient TuMV in ago2 mutant Arabidopsis plants ().
The exact location of viral siRNA processing is unknown. Various types of RNA bodies have been detected in the cytoplasm of plant cells. The PTGS-related proteins RDR6 and suppressor of gene silencing 3 (SGS3) aggregate in cytoplasmic bodies referred to as siRNA bodies (; ). The RNA silencing protein Argonaute 7 (AGO7) has a role in trans-acting small interfering RNA formation in plants (). AGO7 colocalizes with RDR6 and SGS3 to siRNA-bodies. Interestingly, AGO7 also partially overlaps with the signal of membrane bound TEV 6K2 (). First, this suggests a membrane-association for AGO7 and siRNA bodies. Second, because RDR6 and SGS3 are both essential for plant defense against virus infections, the close proximity of siRNA bodies and TEV 6K2-containing VRCs, prompted the authors to suggest that siRNA bodies may be a point of convergence between viral replication and host defense mechanisms.
Processing bodies (P-bodies) and stress granules (SGs) represent other types of RNA bodies formed in the cytoplasm of plant cells (Xu et al., 2006; Weber et al., 2008). Numerous mRNA decay enzymes, such as the decapping enzymes DCP1 and DCP2, associate with P-bodies, whereas SGs contain translational preinitiation complex components. proposed an “mRNA cycle” model in which mRNA targeting between translation, degradation, and storage by RNA granules is tightly coordinated. The amount of translational enhancement via VPg is accompanied by proportional enhancement in PVA RNA accumulation (). The translational enhancement is not linked to enhanced progeny RNA production via replication because non-replicating PVA RNA accumulates as well, or even better, as replicating RNA. Rather, this finding may reflect the interplay between the partitioning of vRNA to the translation pathway or to a pathway leading to the degradation of vRNA and could relate to the role of PVA VPg in interfering RNA silencing suggested in . The 20- to 100-fold increase in the expression of non-replicating PVA RNA in the presences of excess VPg is an intriguing example of how extensively post-transcriptional RNA regulation can affect gene expression in plants (; ). An increasing body of evidence from animal virus studies indicates that the various types of RNA granules required to regulate cellular mRNA cycle, metabolism, and gene expression are manipulated by RNA viruses to foster more productive replication rates (). Similar responses during plant virus infection are far less studied. Nevertheless, a link between plant virus infection and plant RNA granules may exist, and this is an area that should be investigated in the future.
In addition to RNA silencing, the ubiquitin/26S proteasome system (UPS) may affect potyviral RNA amounts in infected cells (; ). UPS has been linked to cellular antiviral defense against many viruses in plants (reviewed in ). The 20S proteasome consists of four stacked ring structures, two outer rings formed of seven α subunits, and two inner rings formed of seven β subunits. The two proteasomal enzyme activities which potentially could affect potyvirus infection are protein degradation by proteases () and RNA degradation by RNase activity (; ). Accumulation of Papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) increased when the 20S proteasomal activity in the host plant, papaya, was inhibited (), indicating that protesome has a role in PRSV infection. PRSV P1 was demonstrated to be prone for proteasomal degradation, whereas the other PRSV proteins were not (). Interestingly, PRSV HC-Pro when expressed in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves mimicked the action of the proteasome inhibitor MG132 and affected both the total amount of ubiquitinated proteins and the amounts of two selected exogenous RNAs of viral and non-viral origin. HC-Pro mutants unable to bind to the proteasomal subunits but still able to bind siRNAs did not cause these effects. The reduction observed in the accumulation of the two mRNAs in the presence of the PRSV HC-Pro mutant deficient in PAA α1-binding is therefore not likely to be due to compromised silencing suppression but to modulated proteasomal activity. PVY HC-Pro interacts with PAA (α1), PBB (β2), and PBE (β5) subunits () of the A. thaliana 20S proteasome, and LMV HC-Pro interacts with the PAE (α5) subunit (). The interaction site in PVY HC-Pro was mapped to its N-terminus (). The RNase activity of the α5 subunit degraded LMV RNA in an in vitro assay, and it was inhibited by LMV HC-Pro ().
An interesting question is how the siRNA-mediated and proteasomal vRNA degradation pathways are related to each other during infection and whether there is a link between these and the other metabolic pathways that regulate the fate of vRNA in cells (Figure 4). Detailed studies on the mechanisms of mRNA decay and RNA silencing in plants have revealed both spatial and functional overlaps (; reviewed in ). These pathways share RNA substrates, as well as genetic requirements (e.g., mutations in the cytoplasmic exoribonuclease XRN4 and the decapping enzyme DCP2 enhance PTGS; ; ). Increased transgene silencing phenotype observed in Arabidopsis plants that carried a mutation in DCP2 was reverted upon TuMV infection (). The RNA silencing proteins AGO1 and SDE3 colocalized to Arabidopsis P-bodies (reviewed in Xu and Chua, 2011). Although not yet linked to virus infection, these examples show the interdependent nature of RNA degradation and storage pathways in plants. With respect to potyviral proteins, VPg and HC-Pro certainly have a role in protecting vRNA against degradation and allowing it to enter the translation/replication pathway rather than the degradation pathway of an infected cell.
FIGURE 4
ENCAPSIDATION OF vRNA
Potyviral CP has an essential role in the regulation of infection. In addition to its conventional role in encapsidation, potyviral CP is able to regulate viral gene expression () and movement (, ; ). In the early phase of virus infection, a mechanism is needed to prevent premature particle assembly and to allow efficient vRNA replication/translation to proceed. Later in the infection, when enough CP has been produced, encapsidation of vRNA is favored. Sequence-specific RNA-protein interactions are often required to initiate the viral assembly process, but the site in the potyvirus RNA where this assembly takes place has not been found. Therefore, the initial CP–RNA interaction site and the mechanism of how potyvirus particles are formed need to be investigated. Potyviruses form capsid shells even in the absence of vRNA, showing that potyvirus particles are largely stabilized by CP–CP interactions. An in vitro assembly model was determined for PVBV () in which the N- and C-termini of CP subunits interact with each other to form ring-like intermediates, which then assemble to flexous virus-like particles. The sequence of virion assembly in vivo may also require the formation of CP intermediates, but this has not been proven yet. CP phosphorylation may provide a mechanism to enable the assembly of potyviruses at the correct time (, ). Two host chaperones, HSP70 and CPIP (; ) were proposed to have a role in controlling CP during active translation/replication (). In the proposed model, when the amount of CP produced exceeded the capacity of HSP70/HSP40 chaperones to sequester CP from vRNA, viral encapsidation took place (). The inhibition of gene expression could be due to the viral assembly process because virion-encapsidated vRNA is not available for translation. However, encapsidation is not the only possible explanation for the inhibition of vRNA expression. Many (+)RNA viruses, such as bromo- and alfamoviruses, regulate their gene expression by specific binding of their CPs to vRNA elements not related to encapsidation (reviewed in ; ).
There are many unanswered questions relating to potyviral encapsidation. It is not known where the encapsidation takes place or how the vRNA is transported to the site of encapsidation. The exact mechanism to produce enough CP and to localize it to the site of encapsidation is also unclear. An additional unresolved issue is whether the process of encapsidation requires assistance (e.g., from host chaperones). Previous work suggested that perinuclear globular structures that develop gradually during potyvirus infection provide a site for viral assembly (). This could be plausible given that encapsidation occurs at a late stage in the infection process. However, the presence of virions within these structures still needs to be demonstrated. Another study found that TuMV CP occurs in close proximity to VRCs but does not colocalize with these complexes (), suggesting that encapsidation could occur at a site adjacent to VRCs. Encapsidated particles contain VPg (), which is surface exposed at one end (). Thus, VPg is able to participate in protein–protein interactions. A tip structure containing at least CI and HC-Pro attaches to the VPg-containing end of potyviral particles (; ). The tip structure was observed only in 10% of particles in a purified virus preparation (), but whether this represents the real ratio of the tip- vs. non-tip-containing viruses in infected cells remains to be investigated. As encapsidation of virions is necessary both for viral movement within the infected plant and transmission of the virus to new hosts by aphids, it is crucial to elucidate the principles underlying virion assembly. Knowledge of particle formation may have practical implications for developing a rational basis for the design of antiviral strategies.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Viral RNA trafficking within an infected cell is a tightly coordinated process, which includes many pathways, such as movement, translation/replication, RNA degradation, and encapsidation that compete for the vRNA produced in VRCs. The site of vRNA release from VRCs to the cytoplasm is likely the location of the RNP complexes which allocate functions to vRNA. The varying concentrations of viral and host proteins in different infection phases may be a key factor in determining the fate of vRNA. Coordination of vRNA may be achieved through competition between various RBPs or RNP complexes for the same regulatory elements. Many interesting links have been discovered between the potyviral RNA pathways (e.g., those between replication and movement, as well as vRNA translation and stability). A sophisticated combination of research methods needs to be exploited to dissect the exact roles of various viral and host proteins in these interdependent pathways and to understand the timing and cellular location of each process. Investigations are required to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying potyvirus infection as a whole and to identify host factors as potential targets for engineering potyvirus-resistant plants.
Statements
Acknowledgments
We sincerely apologize to colleagues whose publications were not cited here. The support of the Academy of Finland to Kristiina Mäkinen is gratefully acknowledged (grant 1138329).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1
Abdul-RazzakA.GuiraudT.PeypelutM.WalterJ.HouvenaghelM. C.CandresseT.et al (2009). Involvement of the cylindrical inclusion (CI) protein in the overcoming of an eIF4E-mediated resistance against lettuce mosaic Potyvirus.Mol. Plant Pathol.10109–113. 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2008.00513.x
2
AgbeciM.GrangeonR.NelsonR. S.ZhengHLalibertéJ. F. (2013). Contribution of host intracellular transport machineries to intercellular movement of turnip mosaic virus.PLoS Pathog.9:e1003683. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003683
3
Ala-PoikelaM.GoytiaE.HaikonenT.RajamäkiM.-LValkonenJ. P. T. (2011). Helper component proteinase of the genus Potyvirus is an interaction partner of translation initiation factors eIF(iso)4E and eIF4E and contains a 4E binding motif.J. Virol.856784–6794. 10.1128/JVI.00485-11
4
AnandalakshmiR.PrussG. J.GeX.MaratheR.MalloryA. C.SmithT. H.et al (1998). A viral suppressor of gene silencing in plants.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.9513079–13084. 10.1073/pnas.95.22.13079
5
AndersonP.KedershaN. (2006). RNA granules.J. Cell Biol.172803–808. 10.1083/jcb.200512082
6
AnindyaR.ChittoriS.SavithriH. S. (2005). Tyrosine 66 of Pepper vein banding virus genome-linked protein is uridylylated by RNAdependent RNA polymerase.Virology336154–162. 10.1016/j.virol.2005.03.024
7
AnindyaR.SavithriH. S. (2003). Surface-exposed amino- and carboxy-terminal residues are crucial for the initiation of assembly in Pepper vein banding virus: a flexuous rod-shaped virus.Virology316325–336. 10.1016/S0042-6822(03)00593-2
8
AymeV.SoucheS.CarantaC.JacquemondM.ChadoeufJ.PalloixA.et al (2006). Different mutations in the genome-linked protein VPg of Potato virus Y confer virulence on the pvr2(3) resistance in pepper.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.19557–563. 10.1094/MPMI-19-0557
9
BaeblerS.Krecic-StresH.RotterA.KogovsekP.CankarK.KokE. J.et al (2009). PVY(NTN) elicits a diverse gene expression response in different potato genotypes in the first 12 h after inoculation.Mol. Plant Pathol.10263–275. 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2008.00530.x
10
Bailey-SerresJ.VangalaS.SzickK.LeeC. H. (1997). Acidic phosphoprotein complex of the 60S ribosomal subunit of maize seedling roots. Components and changes in response to flooding.Plant Physiol.1141293–1305. 10.1104/pp.114.4.1293
11
BalagopalV.ParkerR. (2009). Polysomes, P bodies and stress granules: states and fates of eukaryotic mRNAs.Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.21403–408. 10.1016/j.ceb.2009.03.005
12
BallutL.DruckerM.PugnièreM.CambonF.BlancS.RoquetF.et al (2005). HC-Pro, a multifunctional protein encoded by a plant RNA virus, targets the 20S proteasome and affects its enzymatic activities.J. Gen. Virol.862595–2603. 10.1099/vir.0.81107-0
13
BallutL.PetitF.MouzeyarS.Le GallO.CandresseT.SchmidP.et al (2003). Biochemical identification of proteasome-associated endonuclease activity in sunflower.Biochim. Biophys. Acta164530–39. 10.1016/S1570-9639(02)00500-9
14
BeaucheminC.BoutetN.LaliberteJ. F. (2007). Visualization of the interaction between the precursors of VPg, the viral protein linked to the genome of turnip mosaic virus, and the translation eukaryotic initiation factor iso 4E in planta.J. Virol.81775–782. 10.1128/JVI.01277-06
15
BeaucheminC.LaliberteJ. F. (2007). The poly(A) binding protein is internalized in virus-induced vesicles or redistributed to the nucleolus during turnip mosaic virus infection.J. Virol.8110905–10913. 10.1128/JVI.01243-07
16
BolJ. F. (2005). Replication of alfamo- and ilarviruses: role of the coat protein.Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.4339–62. 10.1146/annurev.phyto.43.101804.120505
17
BrignetiG.VoinnetO.LiW. X.JiL. H.DingS. W.BaulcombeD. C. (1998). Viral pathogenicity determinants are suppressors of transgene silencing in Nicotiana benthamiana.EMBO J.176739–6746. 10.1093/emboj/17.22.6739
18
CarbonellA.FahlgrenN.Garcia-RuizH.GilbertK. B.MontgomeryT. A.NguyenT.et al (2012). Functional analysis of three Arabidopsis ARGONAUTES using slicer-defective mutants.Plant Cell243613–3629. 10.1105/tpc.112.099945
19
CarringtonJ. C.FreedD. D.LeinickeA. J. (1991). Bipartite signal sequence mediates nuclear translocation of the plant potyviral NIa protein.Plant Cell3953–962. 10.1105/tpc.3.9.953
20
CarringtonJ. C.JensenP. E.SchaadM. C. (1998). Genetic evidence for an essential role for Potyvirus CI protein in cell-to-cell movement.Plant J.14393–400. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1998.00120.x
21
CharronC.NicolaïM.GalloisJ. L.RobagliaC.MouryB.PalloixA.et al (2008). Natural variation and functional analyses provide evidence for co-evolution between plant eIF4E and potyviral VPg.Plant J.5456–68. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03407.x
22
ChristieM.BrosnanC. A.RothnagelJ. A.CarrollB. J. (2011). RNA decay and RNA silencing in plants: competition or collaboration?Front. Plant Sci.2:99. 10.3389/fpls.2011.00099
23
ChungB. Y.-W.MillerW. A.AtkinsJ. F.FirthA. E. (2008). An overlapping essential gene in the Potyviridae.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1055897–5902. 10.1073/pnas.0800468105
24
CottonS.GrangeonR.ThiviergeK.MathieuI.IdeC.WeiT.et al (2009). Turnip mosaic virus RNA replication complex vesicles are mobile, align with microfilaments, and are each derived from a single viral genome.J. Virol.8310460–10471. 10.1128/JVI.00819-09
25
den BoonJ. A.AhlquistP. (2010). Organelle-like membrane compartmentalization of positive-strand RNA virus replication factories.Annu. Rev. Microbiol.64241–256. 10.1146/annurev.micro.112408.134012
26
DielenA.-S.BadaouiS.CandresseT.German-RetanaS. (2010). The ubiquitin/26S proteasome system in plant–pathogen interactions: a never-ending hide-and-seek game.Mol. Plant Pathol.11293–308. 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2009.00596.x
27
DielenA. S.SassakiF. T.WalterJ.MichonT.MénardG.PagnyG.et al (2011). The 20S proteasome α5 subunit of Arabidopsis thaliana carries an RNase activity and interacts in planta with the lettuce mosaic Potyvirus HcPro protein.Mol. Plant Pathol.12137–150. 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2010.00654.x
28
DingS. W.VoinnetO. (2007). Antiviral immunity directed by small RNAs.Cell130413–426. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.07.039
29
DoljaV. V.HaldemanR.RobertsonN. L.DoughertyW. G.CarringtonJ. C. (1994). Distinct functions of capsid protein in assembly and movement of tobacco etch Potyvirus in plants.EMBO J.131482–1491.
30
DoljaV. V.Haldeman-CahillR.MontgomeryA. E.VandenboschK. A.CarringtonJ. C. (1995). Capsid protein determinants involved in cell-to-cell and long-distance movement of tobacco etch Potyvirus.Virology2061007–1016. 10.1006/viro.1995.1023
31
DufresneP. J.ThiviergeK.CottonS.BeaucheminC.IdeC.Ubal-ijoroE.et al (2008). Heat shock 70 protein interaction with turnip mosaic virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase within virus-induced membrane vesicles.Virology374217–227. 10.1016/j.virol.2007.12.014
32
EbhardtH. A.ThiE. P.WangM. B.UnrauP. J. (2005). Extensive 3’ modification of plant small RNAs is modulated by helper component-proteinase expression.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10213398–13403. 10.1073/pnas.0506597102
33
ElenaS. F.RodrigoG. (2012). Towards an integrated model of plant–virus interactions.Curr. Opin. Virol.2719–724. 10.1016/j.coviro.2012.09.004
34
EskelinK. HafrénA.RantalainenK. IMäkinenK. (2011). Potyviral VPg enhances viral RNA translation but inhibits reporter mRNA translation in planta.J. Virol.859210–9221. 10.1128/JVI.00052-11
35
EskelinK.SuntioT.HyvärinenS.HafrénAMäkinenK. (2010). Renilla luciferase-based quantification of early Potato virus A infection initiated with Agrobacterium infiltration in N. benthamiana leaves. J. Virol. Methods164101–110. 10.1016/j.jviromet.2009.12.006
36
FellersJ.WanJ.HongY.CollinsG. B.HuntA. G. (1998). In vitro interactions between a potyvirusencoded, genome-linked protein and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.J. Gen. Virol.792043–2049.
37
Gabrenaite-VerkhovskayaR.AndreevA. A.KalininaN. O.TorranceL.TalianskyM. EMäkinenK. (2008). The cylindrical inclusion protein of potato virus A is associated with a subpopulation of particles isolated from infected plants.J. Gen. Virol.89829–838. 10.1099/vir.0.83406-0
38
GallieD. R. (2001). Cap-independent translation conferred by the 5’ leader of tobacco etch virus is eukaryotic initiation factor 4G dependent.J. Virol.7512141–12152. 10.1128/JVI.75.24.12141-12152.2001
39
GalloisJ. L.CharronC.SánchezF.PagnyG.HouvenaghelM. C.MorettiA.et al (2010). Single amino acid changes in the turnip mosaic virus viral genome-linked protein (VPg) confer virulence towards Arabidopsis thaliana mutants knocked out for eukaryotic initiation factors eIF(iso)4E and eIF(iso)4G.J. Gen. Virol.91288–293. 10.1099/vir.0.015321-0
40
Garcia-RuizH.TakedaA.ChapmanE. J.SullivanC. M.FahlgrenN.BrempelisK. J.et al (2010). Arabidopsis RNA-dependent RNA polymerases and dicer-like proteins in antiviral defense and small interfering RNA biogenesis during turnip mosaic virus Infection.Plant Cell22481–496. 10.1105/tpc.109.073056
41
Gautier-BertK.MurolB.JarrousseA. S.BallutL.BadaouiS.PetitF.et al (2003). Substrate affinity and substrate specificity of proteasomes with RNase activity.Mol. Biol. Rep.301–7. 10.1023/A:1022261925117
42
GazzaniS.LawrensonT.WoodwardC.HeadonD.SablowskiR. (2004). A link between mRNA turnover and RNA interference in Arabidopsis.Science3061046–1048. 10.1126/science.1101092
43
GillespieL. K.HoenenA.MorganG.MackenzieJ. M. (2010). The endoplasmic reticulum provides the membrane platform for biogenesis of the flavivirus replication complex.J. Virol.8410438–10447. 10.1128/JVI.00986-10
44
GonzaloP.ReboudJ. P. (2003). The puzzling lateral flexible stalk of the ribosome.Biol. Cell.95179–193. 10.1016/S0248-4900(03)00034-0
45
GrangeonR.JiangJLalibertéJ. F. (2012a). Host endomembrane recruitment for plant RNA virus replication.Curr. Opin. Virol.2683–690. 10.1016/j.coviro.2012.10.003
46
GrangeonR.AgbeciM.ChenJ.GrondinG.ZhengH.LaliberteJ. F. (2012b). Impact on the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus of turnip mosaic virus infection.J. Virol.869255–9265. 10.1128/JVI.01146-12
47
GrangeonR.JiangJ.WanJ.AgbeciM.ZhengHLalibertéJ. F. (2013). 6K2-induced vesicles can move cell to cell during turnip mosaic virus infection.Front. Microbiol.4:351. 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00351
48
GyI.GasciolliV.LauresserguesD.MorelJ. B.GombertJ.ProuxF.et al (2007). Arabidopsis FIERY1, XRN2, and XRN3 are endogenous RNA silencing suppressors.Plant Cell193451–3461. 10.1105/tpc.107.055319
49
HafrénA.EskelinKMäkinenK. (2013). Ribosomal protein P0 promotes Potato virus A infection and functions in viral translation together with VPg and eIF(iso)4E.J. Virol.874302–4312. 10.1128/JVI.03198-12
50
HafrénA.HoffiusD.RönnholmG.SonnewaldUMäkinenK. (2010). HSP70 and its co-chaperone CPIP promote Potato virus A infection by regulating viral coat protein functions.Plant Cell22523–535. 10.1105/tpc.109.072413
51
Haldeman-CahillR.DarosJ.-A.CarringtonJ. C. (1998). Secondary structures in the capsid protein coding sequence and 3′ non-translated region involved in the amplification of the tobacco etch virus genome.J. Gen. Virol.724072–4079.
52
HjulsagerC. K.OlsenB. S.JensenD. M.CordeaM. I.KrathB. N.JohansenI. E.et al (2006). Multiple determinants in the coding region of Pea seed-borne mosaic virus P3 are involved in virulence against sbm-2 resistance.Virology35552–61. 10.1016/j.virol.2006.07.016
53
HofiusD.MaierA. T.DietrichC.JungkunzI.BornkeF.MaissE.et al (2007). Capsid protein-mediated recruitment of host DnaJ-like proteins is required for Potato virus Y infection in tobacco plants.J. Virol.8111870–11880. 10.1128/JVI.01525-07
54
HuangT. S.WeiT.LalibertéJ. F.WangA. (2010). A host RNA helicase-like protein, AtRH8, interacts with the potyviral genome-linked protein, VPg, associates with the virus accumulation complex, and is essential for infection.Plant Physiol.152255–266. 10.1104/pp.109.147983
55
IvanovK.PuustinenP.GabrenaiteR.VihinenH.RönnstrandL.ValmuL.et al (2003). Phosphorylation of the Potyviruscapsid protein by plant protein kinase CK2 and its relevance for virus infection.Plant Cell152124–2139. 10.1105/tpc.012567
56
IvanovK.PuustinenP.MeritsA.SaarmaMMäkinenK. (2001). Phosphorylation down-regulates the RNA-binding function of the coat protein of potato virus A.J. Biol. Chem.1713530–13540. 10.1074/jbc.M009551200
57
IvanovK. IMäkinenK. (2012). Coat proteins, host factors and plant viral replication.Curr. Opin. Virol.2705–711. 10.1016/j.coviro.2012.10.001
58
JinY.MaD.DongJ.JinJ.LiD.DengC.WangT. (2007). HC-pro protein of Potato Virus Y can interact with three Arabidopsis 20S proteasome subunits in planta.J. Virol.8112881–12888. 10.1128/JVI.00913-07
59
JouannetV.MorenoA. B.ElmayanT.VaucheretH.CrespiM. D.MaizelA. (2012). Cytoplasmic Arabidopsis AGO7 accumulates in membrane-associated siRNA bodies and is required for ta-siRNA biogenesis.EMBO J.311704–1713. 10.1038/emboj.2012.20
60
KangB. C.YeamI.FrantzJ. D.MurphyJ. F.JahnM. M. (2005). The pvr1 locus in Capsicum encodes a translation initiation factor eIF4E that interacts with Tobacco etch virus VPg.Plant J.42392–405. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02381.x
61
KaoC. C.NiP.HemaM.HuangX.DragneaB. (2011). The coat protein leads the way: an update on basic and applied studies with the Brome mosaic virus coat protein.Mol. Plant Pathol.12403–412. 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2010.00678.x
62
KasschauK. D.CarringtonJ. C. (1998). A counter defensive strategy of plant viruses: suppression of posttranscriptional gene silencing.Cell95461–470. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81614-1
63
KasschauK. D.CarringtonJ. C. (2001). Long-distance movement and replication maintenance functions correlate with silencing suppression activity of potyviral HC-Pro.Virology28571–81. 10.1006/viro.2001.0901
64
KekarainenT.SavilahtiHValkonenJ. P. T. (2002). Functional genomics on Potato virus A: a virus genome-wide map of sites essential for virus propagation.Genome Res.12584–594. 10.1101/gr.220702
65
KhanM. A.MiyoshiH.GallieD. R.GossD. J. (2008). Potyvirus genome-linked protein, VPg, directly affects wheat germ in vitro translation: interactions with translation initiation factors eIF4F and eIFiso4F.J. Biol. Chem.2831340–1349. 10.1074/jbc.M703356200
66
LakatosL.CsorbaT.PantaleoV.ChapmanE. J.CarringtonJ. C.LiuY. P.et al (2006). Small RNA binding is a common strategy to suppress RNA silencing by several viral suppressors.EMBO J.252768–2780. 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601164
67
LalibertéJ. F.SanfaconH. (2010). Cellular remodeling during plant virus infection.Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.4869–91. 10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114239
68
LéonardS.PlanteD.WittmannS.DaigneaultN.FortinM. GLalibertéJ.-F. (2000). Complex formation between Potyvirus VPg and translation eukaryotic initiation factor 4E correlates with virus infectivity.J. Virol.747730–7737. 10.1128/JVI.74.17.7730-7737.2000
69
LéonardS.VielC.BeaucheminC.DaigneaultN.FortinM. G.LaliberteJ. F. (2004). Interaction of VPg-Pro of turnip mosaic virus with the translation initiation factor 4E and the poly(A)-binding protein in planta.J. Gen. Virol.851055–1063. 10.1099/vir.0.19706-0
70
LiX. H.ValdezP.OlveraR.CarringtonJ. C. (1997). Functions of the tobacco etch virus RNA polymerase (NIb): subcellular transport and protein–protein interaction with VPg/proteinase (NIa).J. Virol.711598–1607.
71
LloydR. E. (2013). Regulation of stress granules and P-bodies during RNA virus infection.Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA4317–331. 10.1002/wrna.1162
72
MahajanS.DoljaV. V.CarringtonJ. C. (1996). Roles of the sequence encoding tobacco etch virus capsid protein in genome amplification: requirements for the translation process and a cis-active element.J. Virol.704370–4379.
73
MaliogkaV. I.CalvoM.CarbonellA.GarcíaJ. A.ValliA. (2012). Heterologous RNA-silencing suppressors from both plant- and animal-infecting viruses support plum pox virus infection.J. Gen. Virol.931601–1611. 10.1099/vir.0.042168-0
74
MazierM.FlamainF.NicolaïM.SarnetteV.CarantaC. (2011). Knock-down of both eIF4E1 and eIF4E2 genes confers broad-spectrum resistance against potyviruses in tomato.PLoS ONE6:e29595. 10.1371/journal.pone.0029595
75
MichonT.EstevezY.WalterJ.German-RetanaSLe GallO. (2006). The potyviral virus genome-linked protein VPg forms a ternary complex with the eukaryotic initiation factors eIF4E and eIF4G and reduces eIF4E affinity for a mRNA cap analogue.FEBS J.2731312–1322. 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2006.05156.x
76
MillerS.Krijnse-LockerJ. (2008). Modification of intracellular membrane structures for virus replication.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.6363–374. 10.1038/nrmicro1890
77
MiorinL.Romero-BreyI.MaiuriP.HoppeS.Krijnse-LockerJ.BartenschlagerR.et al (2013). Three-dimensional architecture of tick-borne encephalitis virus replication sites and trafficking of the replicated RNA.J. Virol.876469–6481. 10.1128/JVI.03456-12
78
MorenoA. B.Martínez de AlbaA. E.BardouF.CrespiM. D.VaucheretH.MaizelA.et al (2013). Cytoplasmic and nuclear quality control and turnover of single-stranded RNA modulate post-transcriptional gene silencing in plants.Nucleic Acids Res.414699–4708. 10.1093/nar/gkt152
79
MouryB.MorelC.JohansenE.GuilbaudL.SoucheS.AymeV.et al (2004). Mutations in Potato virus Y genome-linked protein determine virulence toward recessive resistances in Capsicum annuum and Lycopersicon hirsutum.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.17322–329. 10.1094/MPMI.2004.17.3.322
80
NagyP.PoganyJ. (2011). The dependence of viral RNA replication on co-opted host factors.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.10137–149. 10.1038/nrmicro2692
81
NagyP. D.WangR. Y.PoganyJ.HafrénAMäkinenK. (2011). Emerging picture of host chaperone and cyclophilin roles in RNA virus replication.Virology411374–382. 10.1016/j.virol.2010.12.061
82
NakaharaK. S.ShimadaR.ChoiS. H.YamamotoH.ShaoJ.UyedaI. (2010). Involvement of the P1 cistron in overcoming eIF4E-mediated recessive resistance against Clover yellow vein virus in pea.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.231460–1469. 10.1094/MPMI-11-09-0277
83
NicaiseV.GalloisJ. L.ChafiaiF.AllenL. M.Schurdi-LevraudV.BrowningK. S.et al (2007). Coordinated and selective recruitment of eIF4E and eIF4G factors for Potyvirus infection in Arabidopsis thaliana.FEBS Lett.5811041–1046. 10.1016/j.febslet.2007.02.007
84
OruetxebarriaI.GuoD.MeritsA.MäkinenK.SaarmaMValkonenJ. P. T. (2001). Identification of the genome-linked protein in virions of Potato virus A, with comparison to other members in genus Potyvirus.Virus Res.73103–112. 10.1016/S0168-1702(00)00216-1
85
PatarroyoC.LalibertéJ. F.ZhengH. (2013). Hijack it, change it: how do plant viruses utilize the host secretory pathway for efficient viral replication and spread?Front. Plant Sci.3:308. 10.3389/fpls.2012.00308
86
PuustinenPMäkinenK. (2004). Uridylylation of the Potyvirus VPg by viral replicase NIb correlates with the nucleotide binding capacity of VPg.J. Biol. Chem.27938103–38110. 10.1074/jbc.M402910200
87
PuustinenP.RajamäkiM.IvanovK.ValkonenJMäkinenK. (2002). Detection of potyviral genome linked protein VPg in virions and its phosphorylation with host kinases.J. Virol.7612703–12711. 10.1128/JVI.76.24.12703-12711.2002
88
RaghupathyM. B.GriffithsJ. S.StobbsL. W.BrownD. C.BrandleJ. E.WangA. (2006). Transfection of Arabidopsis protoplasts with a Plum pox virus (PPV) infectious clone for studying early molecular events associated with PPV infection.J. Virol. Methods136147–153. 10.1016/j.jviromet.2006.05.009
89
RajamäkiM.Mäki-ValkamaT.MäkinenKValkonenJ. P. T. (2004). “Infection with potyviruses,” inPlant–Pathogen Interactionsed.TalbotN. (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing) 68–91.
90
RajamäkiM. L.ValkonenJ. P. (2009). Control of nuclear and nucleolar localization of nuclear inclusion protein a of picorna-like potato virus A in Nicotiana species.Plant Cell212485–2502. 10.1105/tpc.108.064147
91
RakhshandehrooF.TakeshitaM.SquiresJ.PalukaitisP. (2009). The influence of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 1 on Potato virus Y infection and on other antiviral response genes.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.221312–1318. 10.1094/MPMI-22-10-1312
92
RantalainenK. I.ChristensenP. A. HafrénA.OtzenD. E.KalkkinenNMäkinenK. (2009). Interaction of a potyviral VPg with synthetic anionic vesicles.Virology395114–120. 10.1016/j.virol.2009.09.009
93
RayS.YumakH.DomashevskiyA.KhanM. A.GallieD. R.GossD. J. (2006). Tobacco etch virus mRNA preferentially binds wheat germ eukaryotic initiation factor (eIF) 4G rather than eIFiso4G.J. Biol. Chem.28135826–35834. 10.1074/jbc.M605762200
94
ReichelC.BeachyR. (2000). Degradation of tobacco mosaic virus movement protein by the 26S proteasome.J. Virol.743330–3337. 10.1128/JVI.74.7.3330-3337.2000
95
RobertsI. M.WangD.FindlayK.MauleA. J. (1998). Ultrastructural and temporal observations of the Potyvirus cylindrical inclusions (CIs) show that the CI protein acts transiently in aiding virus movement.Virology245173–181. 10.1006/viro.1998.9132
96
Rodríguez-CerezoE.FindlayK.ShawJ. G.LomonossoffG. P.QiuS. G.LinsteadP.et al (1997). The coat and cylindrical inclusion proteins of a Potyvirus are associated with connections between plant cells.Virology236296–306. 10.1006/viro.1997.8736
97
Roudet-TavertG.MichonT.WalterJ.DelaunayT.RedondoELe GallO. (2007). Central domain of a potyvirus VPg is involved in the interaction with the host translation initiation factor eIF4E and the viral protein HcPro.J. Gen. Virol.881029–1033. 10.1099/vir.0.82501-0
98
SahanaN.KaurH.BasavarajTenaF.JainR. K.PalukaitisP.et al (2012). Inhibition of the host proteasome facilitates papaya ringspot virus accumulation and proteosomal catalytic activity is modulated by viral factor HcPro.PLoS ONE7:e52546. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052546
99
SchaadM. C.JensenP. E.CarringtonJ. C. (1997). Formation of plant RNA virus replication complexes on membranes: role of an endoplasmic reticulum-targeted viral protein.EMBO J.164049–4059. 10.1093/emboj/16.13.4049
100
SuntioTMäkinenK. (2012). Abiotic stress responses promote Potato virus A infection in Nicotiana benthamiana.Mol. Plant Pathol.13775–784. 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00786.x
101
SzickK.SpringerM.Bailey-SerresJ. (1998). Evolutionary analyses of the 12-kDa acidic ribosomal P-proteins reveal a distinct protein of higher plant ribosomes.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.952378–2383. 10.1073/pnas.95.5.2378
102
Tavert-RoudetG.Abdul-RazzakA.DoubletB.WalterJ.DelaunayT.German-RetanaS.et al (2012). The C terminus of lettuce mosaic Potyvirus cylindrical inclusion helicase interacts with the viral VPg and with lettuce translation eukaryotic initiation factor 4E.J. Gen. Virol.93184–193. 10.1099/vir.0.035881-0
103
ThiviergeK.CottonS.DufresneP. J.MathieuI.BeaucheminC.IdeC.et al (2008). Eukaryotic elongation factor 1A interacts with turnip mosaic virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and VPg-Pro in virus-induced vesicles.Virology377216–225. 10.1016/j.virol.2008.04.015
104
ThranM.LinkK.SonnewaldU. (2012). The Arabidopsis DCP2 gene is required for proper mRNA turnover and prevents transgene silencing in Arabidopsis.Plant J.72368–377. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.05066.x
105
TilsnerJ.LinnikO.LouveauxM.RobertsI. M.ChapmanS. N.OparkaK. J. (2013). Replication and trafficking of a plant virus are coupled at the entrances of plasmodesmata.J. Cell Biol.201981–995. 10.1083/jcb.201304003
106
TilsnerJ.OparkaK. (2012). Missing links? – the connection between replication and movement of plant RNA viruses.Curr. Opin. Virol.2705–711. 10.1016/j.coviro.2012.09.007
107
TorranceL.AndreevI. A.Gabrenaite-VerkhovskayaR.CowanG.MäkinenK.TalianskyM. E. (2006). An unusual structure at one end of potato Potyvirus particles.J. Mol. Biol.3571–8. 10.1016/j.jmb.2005.12.021
108
VerchotJ. (2011). Wrapping membranes around plant virus infection.Curr. Opin. Virol.1388–395. 10.1016/j.coviro.2011.09.009
109
VijayapalaniP.MaeshimaM.Nagasaki-TakekuchiN.MillerW. A. (2012). Interaction of the trans-frame Potyvirus protein P3N-PIPO with host protein PCaP1 facilitates Potyvirus movement.PLoS Pathog.8:e1002639. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002639
110
VoinnetO. (2005). Induction and suppression of RNA silencing: insights from viral infections.Nat. Rev. Genet.6206–220. 10.1038/nrg1555
111
VuorinenA.GammelgårdE.AuvinenP.SomervuoP.DereSValkonen JP. T. (2010). Factors underpinning the responsiveness and higher levels of virus resistance realised in potato genotypes carrying virus-specific R genes.Ann. Appl. Biol.157229–241. 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2010.00424.x
112
WangA.KrishnaswamyS. (2012). Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E-mediated recessive resistance to plant viruses and its utility in crop improvement.Mol. Plant Pathol.13795–803. 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00791.x
113
WangD.MauleA. J. (1995). Inhibition of host gene expression associated with plant virus replication.Science267229–231. 10.1126/science.267.5195.229
114
WangX.KohalmiS. E.SvircevA.WangA.SanfaçonH.TianL. (2013). Silencing of the host factor eIF(iso)4E gene confers plum pox virus resistance in plum.PLoS ONE8:e50627. 10.1371/journal.pone.0050627
115
WeberC.NoverL.FauthM. (2008). Plant stress granules and mRNA processing bodies are distinct from heat stress granules.Plant J.56517–530. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03623.x
116
WeiT.WangA. (2008). Biogenesis of cytoplasmic membranous vesicles for plant Potyvirus replication occurs at endoplasmic reticulum exit sites in a COPI- and COPII-dependent manner.J. Virol.8212252–12264. 10.1128/JVI.01329-08
117
WeiT.ZhangC.HongJ.XiongR.KasschauK. D.ZhouX.et al (2010). Formation of complexes at plasmodesmata for Potyvirus intercellular movement is mediated by the viral protein P3N-PIPO.PLoS Pathog.6:e1000962. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000962
118
WeiT.ZhangC.HouX.SanfaçonH.WangA. (2013). The SNARE protein Syp71 is essential for turnip mosaic virus infection by mediating fusion of virus-induced vesicles with chloroplasts.PLoS Pathog.9:e1003378. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003378
119
WenR. H.HajimoradM. R. (2010). Mutational analysis of the putative pipo of soybean mosaic virus suggests disruption of PIPO protein impedes movement.Virology4001–7. 10.1016/j.virol.2010.01.022
120
WelschS.MillerS.Romero-BreyI.MerzA.BleckC. K.WaltherP.et al (2009). Composition and three-dimensional architecture of the dengue virus replication and assembly sites.Cell Host Microbe5365–375. 10.1016/j.chom.2009.03.007
121
WittmannS.ChatelH.FortinM. GLalibertéJ.-F. (1997). Interaction of the viral protein genome linked of turnip mosaic Potyvirus with the translational eukaryotic initiation factor (iso) 4E of Arabidopsis thaliana using the yeast two-hybrid system.Virology23484–92. 10.1006/viro.1997.8634
122
XuJ.ChuaN. H. (2011). Processing bodies and plant development.Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.1488–93. 10.1016/j.pbi.2010.10.003
123
XuJ.YangJ. Y.NiuQ. W.ChuaN. H. (2006). Arabidopsis DCP2, DCP1, and VARICOSE form a decapping complex required for postembryonic development.Plant Cell183386–3398. 10.1105/tpc.106.047605
124
ZeenkoV.GallieD. R. (2005). Cap-independent translation of tobacco etch virus is conferred by an RNA pseudkoknot in the 5’leader.J. Biol. Chem.2826813–26824. 10.1074/jbc.M503576200
Summary
Keywords
potyviruses, potyviral RNA functions, potyviral translation, potyviral movement, potyviral replication, potyviral RNA degradation, potyviral RNA encapsidation
Citation
Mäkinen K and Hafrén A (2014) Intracellular coordination of potyviral RNA functions in infection. Front. Plant Sci. 5:110. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00110
Received
29 November 2013
Accepted
07 March 2014
Published
26 March 2014
Volume
5 - 2014
Edited by
Eugene I. Savenkov, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Reviewed by
Carmen Simón, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Spain; Minna Rajamäki, University of Helsinki, Finland
Copyright
© 2014 Mäkinen and Hafrén.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kristiina Mäkinen, Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, 00014, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: kristiina.makinen@helsinki.fi
This article was submitted to Plant Physiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant Science.
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.