Viral RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase and the Major Capsid
Protein, VP1
Chennareddy V. Subba-Reddy,aMuhammad Amir Yunus,bIan G. Goodfellow,band C. Cheng Kaoa
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA,a
and Section of Virology, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdomb
Using a cell-based assay for RNA synthesis by the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) of noroviruses, we previously
ob-served that VP1, the major structural protein of the human GII.4 norovirus, enhanced the GII.4 RdRp activity but not that of the
related murine norovirus (MNV) or other unrelated RNA viruses (C. V. Subba-Reddy, I. Goodfellow, and C. C. Kao, J. Virol. 85:
13027–13037, 2011). Here, we examine the mechanism of VP1 enhancement of RdRp activity and the mechanism of mouse
noro-virus replication. We determined that the GII.4 and MNV VP1 proteins can enhance cognate RdRp activities in a
concentration-dependent manner. The VP1 proteins coimmunoprecipitated with their cognate RdRps. Coexpression of individual domains of
VP1 with the viral RdRps showed that the VP1 shell domain (SD) was sufficient to enhance polymerase activity. Using SD
chime-ras from GII.4 and MNV, three loops connecting the central

-barrel structure were found to be responsible for the
species-spe-cific enhancement of RdRp activity. A differential scanning fluorimetry assay showed that recombinant SDs can bind to the
puri-fied RdRps
in vitro
. An MNV replicon with a frameshift mutation in open reading frame 2 (ORF2) that disrupts VP1 expression
was defective for RNA replication, as quantified by luciferase reporter assay and real-time quantitative reverse
transcription-PCR (qRT-transcription-PCR).
Trans
-complementation of VP1 or its SD significantly recovered the VP1 knockout MNV replicon replication,
and the presence or absence of VP1 affected the kinetics of viral RNA synthesis. The results document a regulatory role for VP1
in the norovirus replication cycle, further highlighting the paradigm of viral structural proteins playing additional functional
roles in the virus life cycle.
N
oroviruses (genus
Norovirus
, family
Caliciviridae
) are
re-sponsible for more than 90% of all epidemic nonbacterial
gastroenteritis outbreaks in the United States (
1
), and they are
now recognized as the second leading cause of deaths due to
gas-troenteritis (
24
). Currently, noroviruses are divided into 5
geno-groups (GI to GV) based on sequence similarity (
22
). Human
noroviruses (HuNoV) belong to GI and GII and are subsequently
subdivided into a number of genotypes. GII genotype 4 (GII.4)
HuNoVs are responsible for 70 to 80% of norovirus (NoV)
out-breaks worldwide (
16
). Despite extensive efforts, HuNoVs have
yet to be efficiently propagated in cell culture or animal models
and, hence have been difficult to study and to manipulate for the
development of therapeutics (
17
,
5
). The discovery that the
mu-rine norovirus (MNV; genogroup V) replicates in cell culture and
mice has made MNV an attractive model for the studies of NoV
molecular biology (
47
). Studies with MNV have already yielded
insights into the molecular mechanism of translation, replication,
and the immune response to infection (
9
,
28
,
33
,
43
,
48
). NoVs
have a nonenveloped T
⫽
3 icosahedral capsid that encapsidates a
virus protein, genome-linked VPg, single-stranded, positive-sense
RNA genome (
25
,
27
). The RNA genomes of NoVs are about 7.7
kb and are typically organized into three major open reading
frames (ORFs) (
22
). ORF1 encodes six or seven nonstructural
proteins, including an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)
(
15
). ORF2 and ORF3 encode the major and minor capsid
pro-teins VP1 and VP2, respectively (
22
,
20
). MNV, but not HuNoV,
also encodes an alternative reading frame overlapping the VP1
coding region (
33
). The genomic RNA serves as a template for
synthesis of the nonstructural polyprotein, while the subgenomic
RNAs are used to translate the VP1 and VP2 proteins (
27
).
In vitro
and in cells, the NoV RdRps can initiate RNA synthesis by both a
VPg-dependent and a VPg-independent (
de novo
) manner,
sug-gesting that VPg may have distinct roles in genomic and
antige-nomic RNA synthesis (
2
,
7
,
19
,
41
,
44
).
VP1 contains two major domains, the shell domain (SD) and a
protruding domain (PD), and these are linked by a flexible hinge
(
25
,
39
). The PD is further organized into two subdomains: P1 and
P2 (
39
,
43
). P2 contains the receptor binding sites and is an
im-portant determinant of virulence (
4
,
30
). It is also recognized by
neutralizing antibodies and has been demonstrated to mutate at a
high frequency (
8
,
16
). The SD contains an eight-stranded
antipa-rallel

-sandwich that is commonly found in viral capsid proteins
and forms the icosahedral shell that contains the genomic RNA
(
39
). The SDs can undergo localized conformational changes to
maintain essentially the same interactions between the opposing
SDs in dimers (
39
). Recombinant SDs can self-assemble into
smooth virus-like particles of ca. 30 nm in diameter (
3
).
To study RNA synthesis of GII.4 RdRp, we established a
cell-based assay wherein the GII.4 RdRp products are recognized by
the innate immune receptors RIG-I and MDA5 to activate
re-porter expression (
44
). This so-called NoV-5BR assay is able to
Received14 May 2012Accepted3 July 2012 Published ahead of print11 July 2012
Address correspondence to C. Cheng Kao, [email protected], or Chennareddy V. Subba-Reddy, [email protected].
Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
doi:10.1128/JVI.01208-12
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
Downloaded from
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
Downloaded from
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
detect VPg-primed RNA synthesis as well as the
de novo
-initiated
RNA products generated by both the GII.4 and MNV RdRps.
Fur-ther, coexpression of the GII.4 and the MNV VP1 proteins with
their respective RdRps enhanced RNA synthesis reproducibly by
40 to 60%. In this study, we sought to elucidate how the structural
protein VP1 may affect RdRp activity and contribute to a
biolog-ically relevant activity during virus replication. The observation of
structural proteins playing nonstructural roles in the viral life
cy-cle is increasingly evident. Using VP1 truncations and mutations,
the SD of VP1 was found to be sufficient to enhance NoV
poly-merase activity in a species-specific manner. Furthermore, an
MNV replicon defective for VP1 expression was debilitated for
replication, but the expression of the cognate VP1 or its SD could
rescue replication by
trans
-complementation. The results show
that, apart from virion formation, VP1 has a regulatory role in
NoV genome replication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plasmid constructs and manipulations. The cDNA clones of GII.4 HuNoV RdRp, VP1, and VPg (NoV Hu/GII.4/MD-2004/2004/US; Gen-Bank accession numberDQ658413) were as reported earlier (44). MNV RdRp, VP1, and VPg were PCR amplified from a cDNA clone of MNV-1 strain CW1 (GenBank accession numberDQ285629.1) (7,47) and cloned into the pUNO vector (InvivoGen, San Diego, CA). Plasmid pUNO-hRIG was from InvivoGen (San Diego, CA). The plasmid containing the firefly luciferase reporter gene driven by the beta interferon (IFN-) promoter (IFN--Luc) was used as a reporter, and pRL-TK containing herpes sim-plex virus thymidine kinase (TK) promoter-drivenRenilla reniformis lu-ciferase was used to monitor and standardize the efficacy of transfection (Promega, Madison, WI).
VP1 truncations were generated by PCR amplification using sense and antisense primers containing the AgeI and NheI sites, respectively, and these were cloned into the pUNO vector. VP1 SD chimeras were custom synthesized (Bio Basic Canada, Inc.) with AgeI and NheI sites and cloned into the pUNO vector. For construction of theEscherichia coliexpression vectors pBAD-GII.4 RdRp, pBAD GII.4 VP1 S, and pBAD MNV VP1 SD, their respective genes were amplified from mammalian expression con-structs by using sense and antisense primers containing PstI and HindIII restriction sites, respectively, and cloned into the multiple cloning site of the pBAD/Myc-His A vector (Invitrogen) digested with the same restric-tion enzymes. The expression plasmid for the producrestric-tion of recombinant MNV NS7 was generated by cloning the NS7 sequence into the pET26Ub-His plasmid containing a T7 polymerase promoter and the ubiquitin gene fromSaccharomyces cerevisiae, followed by a C-terminal polyhistidine tag (21,49). The N-terminal ubiquitin fusion is subsequently removed by coexpression inE. coliwith a ubiquitin-specific protease to produce the MNV NS7 with a C-terminal histidine tag. The sequences of all constructs used in this study were confirmed by sequencing with the BigDye Termi-nator v3.1 cycle sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems).
Construction of luciferase-expressing WT and VP1 knockout MNV replicons. Luciferase-expressing wild-type (WT) and VP1 knockout MNV replicons were constructed using the MNV infectious clone named pT7:Mflc that contains the MNV CW1 genome under the control of the T7 RNA polymerase promoter (10). The resulting replicon (Mflc), con-struction and primer details of which are available upon request, contains theRenillaluciferase inserted immediately after the VP1 coding sequence under the control of the MNV TURBS sequence (34,35). Luciferase was followed by the foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) 2A protease se-quence (NFDLLKLAGDVESNPGP) and the MNV VP2-coding sese-quence. Translational chain termination on the FMDV2A sequence between the C-terminal glycine-proline resulted in the addition of a proline residue to the N terminus of VP2. The sequence of the subgenomic region was con-firmed prior to use. A similar replicon in which the RdRp active site YGDD sequence was changed to YGGG (MflcGGG-R) was also generated
by overlapping PCR mutagenesis. This mutation was found to ablate virus recovery when introduced into the MNV full-length infectious clone (data not shown).
To introduce a⫹1 frameshift into the VP1 ORF, a single nucleotide was inserted at position 5070 using QuikChange mutagenesis of a SexAI-SacII fragment encompassing nucleotides (nt) 4276 to 5767 of Mflc-R. This fragment was subsequently reintroduced into the MNV replicon Mflc-R, and the sequence was confirmed prior to use. The resulting plas-mid with the⫹1 frameshift was designated Mflc-Rfs. The sequences of all constructs were confirmed prior to use.
In vitrotranscription of MNV replicons.Plasmids Mflc, Mflc-R, and Mflc-Rfs were linearized with NheI, and capped RNA transcripts were synthesized from the linearized templates using the AmpliCap-Max T7 high-yield message maker kit (Epicenter Biotechnologies). The reactions were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.In vitro
transcripts were purified by ammonium acetate precipitation and ana-lyzed by electrophoresis in a 1% agarose gel.
Mammalian cell cultures.Human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293T) were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) and GlutaMAX high-glucose medium (Gibco) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). The murine macrophage cell line, RAW264.7, was cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 U/ml), and streptomycin (100 mg/ml). All the cell cultures were grown and maintained at 37°C and 5% CO2. Luciferase reporter assays.The NoV-5BR luciferase reporter assays were essentially performed as described in Subba-Reddy et al. (44). Plas-mids expressing RdRp and VP1 were cotransfected with plasPlas-mids express-ing RIG-I as well as firefly andRenillaluciferase reporters. All transfec-tions were performed with Lipofectamine 2000 according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Twenty-four hours prior to transfection, 0.5⫻105cells were seeded into each well of Costar 96-well plates in DMEM containing 10% FBS. Cells were then typically transfected at 75% confluence. A typical transfection used 20 ng of IFN--Luc, 5 ng of pRL-TK, 0.5 ng of the plasmid expressing the RIG-I, and 50 ng of the plasmid expressing the viral polymerase. Where neces-sary, the vector plasmid (pUNO-MCS) was used to maintain a constant amount of total plasmid DNA per well. At 36 h after transfection, lucifer-ase activity was measured using the Dual-Glo luciferlucifer-ase assay system (Pro-mega, Madison, WI) in a Synergy 2 microplate reader (BioTek, Winooski, VT). The ratios of firefly toRenillaluciferase activity were calculated for each well, and the values of the samples were normalized to that of the control. When used, the exogenous RIG-I agonist was a 60-nt hairpin triphosphorylated RNA (shR9) and was transfected at a 10 nM final con-centration. The cells were assayed for luciferase levels 18 to 22 h after transfection of exogenous agonists.
TheRenillaluciferase activity assay to quantify the MNV replicon used 0.5⫻105RAW264.7 cells seeded into each well of a Costar 96-well plate. The cells at 80% confluence were transfected with 100 ng ofin vitro tran-scripts made from Mflc-R and Mflc-Rfs using Lipofectamine 2000 as a vehicle according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Invitrogen, Carls-bad, CA). Thein vitrotranscripts of Mflc-R (100 ng) that did not express luciferase were transfected as a background control. At 36 h after trans-fection, the cells were washed once with 1⫻phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and the cells were lysed in 20l of 1⫻passive lysis buffer. The luciferase activity was measured using theRenillaluciferase assay system (Promega, Madison, WI).
Protein expression analysis.To determine the expression of recom-binant proteins, about 1⫻105293T cells per well were transfected with 100 ng of each plasmid in 48-well plates (BD Falcon). To determine the expression of MNV replicon proteins, about 1⫻105RAW264.7 cells per well were transfected with 100 ng of eachin vitrotranscript in 48-well cell culture plates (BD Falcon). After 24 h, cells were washed with 1⫻PBS (pH 7.4) and harvested into 1⫻SDS-PAGE sample buffer. Lysates were re-solved on a 4 to 12% NuPage Novex Bis-Tris gel and electrophoretically transferred onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes (Invitro-gen, Carlsbad, CA). Membranes were incubated in blocking buffer (5%
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
nonfat milk in Tris-buffered saline) supplemented with antibodies. RdRps were detected using a mouse monoclonal anti-FLAG antibody (Sigma). VP1, VP1 truncations, VP1 chimeras, and VPg were probed using a goat anti-HA polyclonal antibody (Abcam). MNV replicon-ex-pressed RdRp and VP2 proteins were detected by rabbit polyclonal anti-bodies as described previously (7). MNV VP1 was detected using a mouse monoclonal antibody specific to the norovirus capsid protein (Abcam). Membranes were probed with horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated secondary antibodies and developed using the ECL Plus Western blotting detection system (Amersham, United Kingdom).
Coimmunoprecipitation assays. Coimmunoprecipitation (co-IP) assays to assess protein complex formation used 106HEK293T cells per well in 6-well cell culture plates (BD Falcon). These were cotransfected with 1g of plasmid expressing FLAG-tagged RdRp and 100 ng of plas-mid expressing hemagglutinin (HA)-tagged VP1, VP1 truncations, or VP1 chimeras. Twenty-four hours after transfection, the cell lysates were prepared in nondenaturing lysis buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8], 137 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 1% Nonidet P-40, 2 mM EDTA) mammalian cell protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma) at 10l/ml of lysate. The FLAG-tagged RdRps were immunoprecipitated using anti-FLAG tag monoclo-nal antibody (Sigma) covalently linked to Dynabeads M-270 epoxy resin according to the instructions of the manufacturer and as reported (44). Samples were subsequently resolved by 4 to 12% NuPage Novex Bis-Tris gels using MOPS (morpholinepropanesulfonic acid)-SDS running buffer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), transferred to PVDF membranes, and de-tected by a Western blot analysis using the appropriate antibodies.
Recombinant protein expression and purification.Overnight cul-tures ofE. coliTOP 10 cells harboring pBAD-GII.4 RdRp, pBAD GII.4 VP1 S, and pBAD MNV VP1 S were diluted 1:250 in 1 liter of Luria-Bertani (LB) medium containing ampicillin (50 ng/1 ml LB medium). The cultures were grown with vigorous shaking to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of⬃0.5, andL-arabinose was added to a 0.02% final concentration. After 5 h of growth at 37°C with shaking, the cells were harvested by centrifugation, and the pellet was suspended in 50 ml of 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 150 mM NaCl, and 0.25 mM EDTA (buffer 1). The cell suspension was sonicated, and the supernatant, recovered after centrifugation at 15,000 rpm for 30 min in a Sorvall SS-34 rotor, was mixed with 1 ml of Talon metal affinity resin (Clontech Laboratories) and adsorbed by shaking for 1 h at 4°C. Following the absorption step, the resin was washed five times with 5 ml of buffer 1 containing 40 mM imidazole. After the final wash, the protein was eluted in buffer 1 contain-ing 300 mM imidazole. All eluted proteins were further purified with a second Talon resin. C-terminally His-tagged MNV RdRp was expressed and purified essentially as described above, with minor modifications. Briefly, cultures were induced with IPTG (isopropyl--D -thiogalactopy-ranoside), initially purified by nickel affinity chromatography (GE Healthcare), and washed with 20 mM imidazole, followed by specific elu-tion with 500 mM imidazole. The resulting protein was diluted to 100 mM NaCl and passed through a phosphocellulose P11 column (Whatman) to remove any nonspecific proteins. The protein that did not bind to the P11 column was further purified by nickel affinity chromatography as de-scribed before. Protein purity was checked by SDS-PAGE, and concentra-tions were estimated by using the Quick Start Bradford protein assay kit (Bio-Rad) with bovine serum albumin (BSA) as the standard.In vitro
RNA synthesis by the recombinant RdRps was performed using the pro-tocol and template RNAs described in Chinnaswamy et al. (13).
Differential scanning fluorimetry.Thermal melting curves of GII.4 RdRp and VP1 SD were obtained in 96-well plates using the Stratagene Mx3005P quantitative PCR (qPCR) system (Agilent Technologies) and the fluorescent dye Sypro Orange (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Different concentrations of expressed VP1 SD were mixed with 20M purified GII.4 RdRp and a 5⫻concentration of Sypro Orange. A heating rate of 1.0°C per min was used from 25 to 80°C, and fluorescence intensity was read at excitation and emission wavelengths of 470 and 550 nm, respec-tively.
VPg electrophoretic mobility shift assay.About 1⫻106HEK293T cells were seeded in each well of 6-well cell culture plates (BD Falcon) and cotransfected with 1g of recombinant plasmid expressing FLAG-tagged RdRp and 100 ng of plasmid expressing HA-tagged VPg. Twenty-four hours later, VPg was immunoprecipitated using anti-HA tag polyclonal antibody covalently linked to Dynabeads M-270 epoxy resin. Samples were resolved by 4 to 12% NuPage Novex Bis-Tris gel using MOPS-SDS running buffer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and transferred to PVDF membranes. The VPg and RNA-linked VPg were detected by a Western blot analysis using anti-HA antibodies.
Quantitative RT-PCR.Strand-specific quantification of genomic and antigenomic RNAs by reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) was per-formed as described by Vashist et al. (45). To prepare standard curves for qRT-PCR quantification of genomic and antigenomic RNAs, T7 pro-moter sequences were added to genomic- and antigenomic-sense strands by PCR. The genomic-sense strands were amplified by PCR using a for-ward primer with a T7 promoter sequence (5=-GCGTAATACGACTCAC TATAG TGGACAACGTGGTGAAGGAT-3=, with the T7 promoter se-quence underlined) (corresponding to nt 1678 to 1697) and a reverse primer (5=-CAAACATCTTTCCCTTGTTC-3=) (corresponding to nt 1760 to 1779). An antigenomic product was amplified by PCR using a reverse primer with a T7 promoter sequence (5=-GCGTAATACGACTC ACTATAGCAAACATCTTTCCCTTGTTC-3=, with the T7 promoter se-quence underlined) and a forward primer (5=-TGGACAACGTGGTGAA GGAT-3=). The PCR products were purified by gel extraction and used as templates forin vitroRNA synthesis by using the AmpliCap-Max T7 kit (Epicenter Biotechnologies) as described previously.
About 106RAW264.7 cells per well in 6-well cell culture plates (BD Falcon) were transfected with 1g of eachin vitrotranscript. Cells were harvested at different time points posttransfection, and total RNAs were prepared using the TRIzol reagent (Ambion, Carlsland, CA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The RNA preparations were treated with DNase I (RNase-free) (New England BioLabs) for 30 min at 37°C and again purified using TRIzol reagent as described above. A total of 100 ng of each RNA sample was used for cDNA synthesis using SuperScript III reverse transcriptase (Invitrogen) with either a genomic (5=-CAAACATC TTTCCCTTGTTC-3=) or antigenomic (5=-TGGACAACGTGGTGAAG GAT-3=) specific reverse primer at 55°C for 30 min, followed by heat inactivation at 90°C for 5 min. The assays targeted regions within the genomic RNA, specifically within ORF1 (nt 1678 to 1779). Quantitative real-time RT-PCR was performed using the Power SYBR green PCR mas-ter mix (Applied Biosystems, Warrington, United Kingdom) and the Eppendorf Mastercycler (Eppendorf AG, Hamburg).
Statistical analysis.The data are shown as the means and the ranges for one standard error. Data sets of three or more groups were compared by the Studentttest using GraphPad Prism 5 software. In all analyses,P
values ofⱕ0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
VP1 can modulate RdRp activity.
Using the NoV-5BR assay, we
investigated the effect of VP1 expression on the activities of the
RdRps from GII.4 NoV and MNV. A typical assay used HEK293T
cells transfected to express the viral RdRp, RIG-I, firefly luciferase
expressed from the IFN-

promoter, and constitutive
Renilla
lu-ciferase. The ratio of firefly to
Renilla
luciferase reports on the
RNA products synthesized by the RdRp and subsequently
de-tected by RIG-I. The presence of the GII.4 VP1 expression plasmid
at 10 ng resulted in a 50 to 60% increase in the activity of the
cognate RdRp but not that of the MNV RdRp (
Fig. 1A
) (
P
⫽
0.001). A similar species-specific VP1-RdRp interaction was also
found with the MNV proteins (
P
⫽
0.003) (
Fig. 1A
). VP1
expres-sion did not affect RIG-I-mediated signaling via a short
triphos-phorylated RNA agonist, shR9 (
40
) (
Fig. 1B
). These observations
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
confirmed that the enhancement of RdRp activity by VP1 is
spe-cies specific and acts through the RdRp.
Given that the ratio of RdRp to VP1 is likely to vary during the
viral life cycle as a function of subgenomic RNA synthesis, we
examined the effect of increasing levels of the GII.4 or MNV VP1
proteins on RdRp activity. A Western blot analysis confirmed that
increasing plasmid concentrations resulted in a corresponding
in-crease in VP1 accumulation, although detection of expression
re-quired a minimum of 5 ng of plasmid (
Fig. 1C
). Transfection of 10
ng of the GII.4 VP1 expression plasmid into cells exhibited
opti-mal enhancement, while higher levels did not enhance as well,
without obviously inhibiting RdRp activity (
Fig. 1D
).
Impor-tantly, the concentration-dependent effect of VP1 was species
spe-cific for the MNV and GII.4 VP1 proteins (
Fig. 1D
and
E
).
The S domain of VP1 is necessary and sufficient to modulate
the RdRp activity.
VP1 contains two domains, the shell domain
(SD) that includes an N-terminal tail of 45 residues and a
protrud-ing domain (PD) (
Fig. 2A
) (
39
). We constructed four VP1
trun-cations that consist of VP1 lacking the N-terminal tail (
⌬
NT), the
SD, the PD, or the SD lacking the N-terminal tail (S
⌬
NT) (
Fig. 2B
)
and tested for their effect on RdRp activity. The GII.4 RdRp
activ-ity was enhanced by the GII.4
⌬
NT, SD, and S
⌬
NT but not by the
PD (
Fig. 2C
). Comparable results were observed with MNV RdRp
(
Fig. 2D
). The enhancement of RdRp activity by the SD was not
only species specific but also concentration dependent (
Fig. 2E
and
F
). The SD of VP1 without the NT was sufficient to modulate
the RdRp activity in a manner comparable to that of VP1.
Loops in the VP1 S domain are critical for interaction with
RdRp.
We sought to map further the motifs within the VP1 SDs
required to modulate RdRp activity. The SD contains a central
8-stranded

-barrel structure that contains 8 major loops. We will
refer to the

-strands as the “core” and the loops as loops 1 to 8
(
Fig. 3A
). Notably, loops 1, 3, 5, and 7 are located on one surface of
the core, while loops 2, 4, 6, and 8 are on the other surface (
39
). Six
chimeras (C1 to C6) that mixed and matched the cores and loops
of the GII.4 and MNV SDs were tested (
Fig. 3B
). C1, which
con-tains the GII.4 SD core and all eight loops from the MNV SD [N
Core-M(L1-L8)] (
Fig. 3B
), considerably enhanced the MNV
RdRp activity (
P
⫽
0.007) but not the GII.4 RdRp activity (
Fig. 3B
and
D
). Similarly, C2, which contains the MNV SD core and all
eight of the GII.4 SD loops, significantly enhanced only the GII.4
RdRp activity (
P
⫽
0.009) (
Fig. 3B
). Species-specific interaction
with the RdRp segregated with the loops in the SD.
Chimeras C3 and C5, which contain loops 2, 4, 6, and 8 and
the core from the same species but heterologous loops 1, 3, 5,
and 7, failed to enhance the homologous RdRp activity (
Fig. 3B
and data not shown). However, C4 and C6, which contain
ho-mologous cores and loops 1, 3, 5, and 7 but heterologous loops
2, 4, 6, and 8, enhanced the cognate RdRp (
P
⫽
0.013) (
Fig. 3B
).
These results reveal that loops 1, 3, 5, and 7, together with the
FIG 1VP1 modulates RdRp activity. (A) Activities of the NoV RdRps are enhanced by coexpression of the homologous VP1 proteins. The results used the NoV-5BR assay format assessed in HEK293T cells. A plus symbol below thexaxis shows the presence of a plasmid encoding the protein of interest. Ratios of firefly (FF) toRenilla(Ren) luciferase activities (Luc.) were determined after 36 h of transfection and are shown on theyaxis. Each bar represents the means of three independent experiments, and the standard errors are shown above the bar. (B) VP1 did not affect RIG-I signaling induced by exogenously provided agonists. The concentrations of the relevant construct transfected into cells are shown on thexaxis. The RIG-I agonist, shR9, was transfected at a final concentration of 10 nM 24 h after the transfection of the expression plasmids (40). The ratios of firefly luciferase toRenillaluciferase activities were determined after 12 to 16 h of shR9 transfection. The data are the means and standard errors of two independent experiments, each of which had three independent samples. (C) The expression of MNV and GII.4 VP1 depended on the concentration of transfected plasmids. (D) GII.4 VP1 stimulates its RdRp in a concentration-dependent manner. The concentrations of the VP1-expressing plasmid used are shown on thexaxis. The plasmid expressing the GII.4 RdRp was kept at 50 ng per transfection. Luciferase activities were assessed 36 h after transfection. (E) MNV VP1 stimulates its RdRp in a concentration-dependent manner. The format of the experiment is the same as in panel D.
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/

-strands in the SD core, are important for species-specific
RdRp interaction.
We examined whether the chimeras were altered in their
con-centration-dependent enhancement of RdRp activity. C2, which
contains all of the loops from the GII.4 SD but has the MNV core,
enhanced the GII.4 RdRp activity in a concentration-dependent
manner (
Fig. 3C
), although the overall enhancement of RdRp
activity was lower than that of the WT SD. Similarly, C1, which
contains all of the loops from the MNV SD, exhibited a
concen-tration-dependent enhancement. Interestingly, the three
chime-ras that had loops derived from different NoV species failed to
affect RdRp activity in a concentration-dependent manner (
Fig.
3C
and
D
). Altogether, results with the chimeras indicate that
loops 1, 3, 5, and 7 contribute to enhancing the RdRp activity;
however, loops 2, 4, 6, and 8 on the other side of the core structure
contribute to the suppression of enhancement. Given that the loops
of the SD are involved in the interactions between SD subunits that
lead to virus-like particle (VLP) formation, we hypothesize that
oli-gomerization of SD and VP1 molecules prevents interaction with the
cognate RdRps and the observed enhanced activity.
A comparison of the sequences of loops 1, 3, 5, and 7 from the
GII.4 and MNV SDs is presented in
Fig. 3B
. Loop 3 had identical
sequences, loops 1 and 5 differed by only a single residue, and loop
7 differed by five residues. We further examined whether chimeras
with a swap of only loop 1, 5, or 7 affected RdRp activity and found
that none did (data not shown). These results indicate that two or
more of loops 1, 5, and/or 7 are required to functionally interact
with the RdRp.
FIG 2The VP1 S domain modulates RdRp activity. (A) Ribbon structure showing the domains in GII.4 VP1. The amino-terminal tail (NT), the SD, and the PD are connected by flexible loops. In this orientation of the VP1, the right-hand side of the PD is involved in dimeric contacts (39). (B) Schematic of VP1 and its truncations. The full-length VP1 was labeled as WT. The amino acid numbers represent those of the GII.4 genotype used in the present study (GenBank accession numberDQ658413). VP1 with the N-terminal 45 residues deleted is named⌬NT. SD contains residues 1 to 216. PD contains residues 217 to 540. S⌬NT expresses residues 45 to 216. (C) The SD is sufficient to enhance RdRp activity. Where present, the plasmids to express the GII.4 RdRp and VP1 constructs were at 50 ng and 10 ng per well of cells, respectively. A plus symbol below thexaxis shows the presence of the respective plasmid. The ratios of luciferase activities were determined 36 h after plasmid transfection. The data are the means of two independent experiments with three replicates each, and the standard errors are shown. (D) The SD is sufficient to enhance RdRp activity. The reagents and format used in this experiment are identical to those in panel C. (E) The GII.4 SD has a concentration-dependent effect on GII.4 RdRp activity. GII.4 RdRp was transfected at a constant concentration of 50 ng. The concentrations of the GII.4 and MNV VP1 SD transfected, in ng of plasmid per well of cells, are shown on thexaxis. (F) The GII.4 SD has a concentration-dependent effect on GII.4 RdRp activity.
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
The S domain can bind to RdRp in a species-specific manner.
Immunoprecipitation assays were performed to determine
whether VP1 and its derivatives can bind the viral RdRp.
FLAG-tagged RdRp and HA-FLAG-tagged VP1 proteins were confirmed to be
functional in the NoV-5BR assays and were expressed to
detect-able levels in cells (
Fig. 4A
). Western blots of the
immunoprecipi-tates revealed that all the RdRps were pulled down by anti-FLAG
antibody (
Fig. 4A
, top panel), but only the homologous VP1
pro-teins were able to be coprecipitated with the RdRps, i.e., the GII.4
RdRp could coprecipitate its cognate VP1 but not the MNV VP1,
and vice versa (
Fig. 4A
, middle panel). VP1,
⌬
NT, and the SD were
coimmunoprecipitated with the homologous GII.4 and MNV
RdRps, but the PD was not (
Fig. 4C
and
E
). These results confirm
that the SDs of the VP1 proteins can form a complex with their
cognate RdRps. However, while chimeras C1 to C6 were expressed
at levels comparable to that of the WT SD, none were detectably
coimmunoprecipitated with the RdRp (
Fig. 4F
). These results
suggest that in addition to the specific interaction between the SD
and RdRp requiring loops 1, 3, 5, and 7, the core

-barrel structure
may be needed to stabilize the interaction with the RdRp and to
enable the complex to be immunoprecipitated.
Differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) assays were used to
determine whether recombinant VP1 SD can bind RdRp
in vitro
(
Fig. 5
). DSF analyzes the thermal denaturation (
T
m) of
pro-teins that can be altered by ligand binding (
37
). The
denatur-ation of the protein is detected by the binding of the dye Sypro
Orange, which fluoresces upon contact with hydrophobic
por-tions of polypeptides. The SD had minimal signal, likely due to
its small size (
Fig. 5B
). The preparations of the RdRps were
competent for RNA synthesis
in vitro
(data not shown). The
GII.4 and MNV RdRps displayed a prominent change in
fluo-rescence that was maximally evident at 43°C, which we will
refer to as the
Tm
app(
Fig. 5B
). An equimolar solution (20 nM
[each] GII.4 RdRp and VP1 SD) increased the
Tm
appby 2.5°C
(
Fig. 5B
). A 2:1 molar ratio of the SD to the RdRp resulted in a
⌬
T
mof 1.5°C, suggesting that interaction between the SD and
the RdRp preferred a lower ratio of the two molecules (
Fig. 5C
).
Consistent with all of the results demonstrating a
species-spe-cific interaction, the MNV SD did not alter the fluorescence
emission of the GII.4 RdRp and vice versa (
Fig. 5B
and
C
).
Similar results were obtained using the MNV RdRp and SD
(
Fig. 5C
). The addition of RNA to the DSF reaction did not
FIG 3Loops in the S domain are critical for specific interactions with RdRp. (A) Amino acid sequence of the GII.4 VP1 SD. The amino acid numbers are those of the GII.4 VP1 (GenBank accession numberDQ658413). Thestrands that form the classical eight-stranded-barrel structure are labeled1 to8. Loops connecting the eight-stranded-sandwich structure are labeled L1 to L8 and highlighted in red. (B) Schematic depicting the SD chimeras with mixtures of different loop sequences. The color schemes for the GII.4 and MNV SD loops and-barrel motifs are shown in the upper two constructs and used to denote the motifs present in the chimeras. A summary of the effects of the chimeras on GII.4 and MNV RdRp activity is shown beside the chimeras. The plus (⫹) symbol shows the enhancement of RdRp activity. The sequences of loops 1, 3, and 5 for the GII.4 are shown in one-letter amino acid codes. A dash denotes where the MNV residues are identical in these loops. (C) Effect of SD chimeras on GII.4 RNA synthesis in the NoV-5BR assay. GII.4 RdRp-expressing plasmid was transfected at 50 ng, and the amounts of the plasmids for the SD constructs are shown on thexaxis. Luciferase activities were read 36 h after transfection. (D) Concentration-dependent effects of the SD chimeras on MNV RNA synthesis. The format of the experiment is the same as in panel C.
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
cause a further change to the
Tm
appof the RdRp-SD complex
(data not shown).
VP1 and VPg-primed RNA synthesis.
Results from the
NoV-5BR assay thus far illustrated that VP1 can enhance RNA synthesis
in the absence of VPg. To examine whether VP1 can affect
VPg-primed RNA synthesis, we expressed homologous and
heterolo-gous combinations of VP1, RdRp, and VPg proteins in HEK293T
cells (
Fig. 6
). The coexpression of VPg with the RdRp increased
luciferase activity in the NoV-5BR assay by ca. 30 to 40% and
produced a covalently linked VPg-RNA complex that can be
dis-tinguished from free VPg by its electrophoretic mobility (
44
).
Co-expression of 10 ng of either the MNV or GII.4 VP1 with their
cognate RdRps and VPgs increased luciferase activity (
Fig. 6A
and
B
). To investigate whether the combination of three proteins
af-fected VPg-primed RNA synthesis, we immunoprecipitated the
tagged VPg and performed a Western blot analysis of VPg
prod-ucts as previously described (
44
). With the expression of all three
proteins, the VPg-RNA complex was detected (
Fig. 6
). The
VPg-RNA was not observed in cells that did not express the RdRp.
Notably, while the presence of VP1 increased the abundance of
both VPg and VPg-RNA, the relative ratio of VPg to VPg-RNA
was not increased (
Fig. 6C
and
D
).
VP1 knockout significantly reduces MNV genome
replica-tion.
The results on VP1-RdRp interaction led us to hypothesize
that VP1 may regulate NoV RNA replication. To test this, we
constructed an MNV replicon, referred to as Mflc-R, that
ex-presses a
Renilla
luciferase-FMDV 2A-VP2 fusion protein in place
of VP2 (
Fig. 7A
). In parallel, we constructed Mflc
GGG-R, which has
a mutation in the active site of the RdRp. Transfection of the
capped transcript of Mflc-R into RAW264.7 cells resulted in a
10-to 12-fold increase in
Renilla
levels compared to those of control
transcripts that did not express the reporter (
Fig. 7B
). Mutant
Mflc
GGG-R had 6-fold lower
Renilla
activity than Mflc-R,
con-firming that replication of the WT replicon is responsible for the
FIG 4VP1-RdRp interaction. (A) Coimmunoprecipitation of GII.4 and MNV VP1s with their cognate RdRps. HEK293T cells were cotransfected with 50 ng of plasmid expressing a FLAG-tagged GII.4 or MNV RdRp and 10 ng of plasmid expressing HA-tagged VP1 from either GII.4 or MNV. The identities of the bands are shown to the right of the Western blot images. (B) Expression of the GII.4 VP1 or its truncated derivatives present in the cell lysates used for the immunoprecipitation assays. (C) Coimmunoprecipitation of GII.4 VP1 truncations with its RdRp. The expected positions of VP1 or its truncations are identified by asterisks to the right of the bands identified in the Western blots. The bottom Western blot image shows the amount of RdRp present in the precipitated material. (D) Western blot showing the expression of different truncations of MNV VP1. The proteins were analyzed by Western blotting using goat anti-HA polyclonal antibody (Abcam) to detect the expression of HA-tagged MNV VP1 and its truncations. (E) Amount of MNV VP1 or its truncations that coimmu-noprecipitated with the MNV RdRp. FLAG-tagged RdRps were immucoimmu-noprecipitated using anti-FLAG mouse monoclonal antibody (Sigma), and immunopre-cipitates were analyzed by a Western blot using goat anti-HA polyclonal antibodies (Abcam) (top panel). (F) The WT SD, but not the SD chimeras, could coimmunoprecipitate with the GII.4 RdRp. The identities of the bands in the input (top panel) and the precipitated materials (middle and bottom panels) are shown to the right of the Western blot images. The relevant masses from the molecular mass standards are shown to the left of the Western blot image..
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
readout and indicating that there is a sufficient window for the
analysis of the manipulation of the VP1 expression in the replicon.
To examine the effect of VP1 expression on viral replication,
we made a single nucleotide insertion in the VP1 open reading
frame of Mflc-R to generate Mflc-Rfs (
Fig. 7
). The insertion is 3
=
of
the termination codon of the ORF1 polyprotein and was designed
to abolish VP1 translation. Mflc-Rfs exhibited a significant
de-crease in luciferase activity compared to that of Mflc-R (
Fig. 7B
). A
Western blot analysis of the proteins produced during infection
showed that both Mflc-R and Mflc-Rfs expressed RdRp, but only
Mflc-R expressed VP1 (
Fig. 7C
). Mflc-Rfs did reduce RdRp
accu-mulation to 50% of that of Mflc-R, likely due to decreased
repli-cation (
Fig. 7C
). When
trans
-complemented with VP1, RdRp
ex-pression by Mflc-Rfs recovered to 80% of that of Mflc-R (
Fig. 7C
).
These results suggest that, despite VP1 being a structural protein,
its proper expression is needed for optimal MNV replication.
Next, we determined the concentration- and species-specific
effects on Mflc-Rfs by expressing increasing concentrations of the
MNV or GII.4 VP1 or SD in
trans
. Mflc-Rfs replication was
en-hanced by cotransfection of the cells with 10 ng of the plasmid
expressing MNV VP1 (
Fig. 7D
). Higher levels of VP1 plasmid
reduced
Renilla
levels expressed from the replicon, consistent with
the results from the NoV-5BR assay (
Fig. 7D
). Importantly, the
coexpression of the GII.4 VP1 did not increase the
Renilla
levels
(
Fig. 7D
), thus ruling out the effects of nonspecific RNA binding
by VP1 being responsible for enhanced RNA levels. Expression of
the MNV VP1 SD, but not the GII.4 SD, in
trans
also enhanced
Mflc-Rfs replication (
Fig. 7E
). All these findings are consistent
with VP1 SD playing a regulatory role in MNV RNA replication.
VP1 affects the kinetics of MNV RNA replication in cell
cul-ture.
We sought to examine further the kinetics of MNV
replica-tion in response to exogenously expressed VP1 or SD. RAW264.7
cells were transfected with
in vitro
-transcribed RNA of WT Mflc-R
or Mflc-Rfs along with plasmids to express either VP1 or the SD
and harvested over a time course. Total RNAs were prepared, and
the accumulation of genomic and antigenomic RNAs was
quan-tified by a strand-specific qRT-PCR assay. The copy numbers of
RNAs were extrapolated from a standard curve generated using
the same qRT-PCR assay with
in vitro
-transcribed genomic and
antigenomic RNA copy number controls. The antigenomic RNA
was found to increase, starting from 4 h posttransfection (hpt).
Both the genomic and antigenomic RNAs increased up to 3 log
10by 16 hpt (
Fig. 8A
). Interestingly, the genomic and antigenomic
RNAs from Rfs increased more slowly than those from
Mflc-R, resulting in a 1 log
10increase in the genomic RNA at 16 hpt (
Fig.
8A
). When Mflc-Rfs was
trans
-complemented with VP1, the
genomic RNA copy number improved to nearly the same level as
that for Mflc-R (
Fig. 8A
). These results confirm that the
accumu-lations of both antigenomic and genomic RNAs were expedited
and increased by the presence of VP1.
We further sought to examine whether the accumulation of the
genomic and antigenomic MNV replicon RNAs was affected by
VP1 concentrations. VP1 was expressed at three concentrations of
transfected plasmids, and the level of VP1 expression affected both
the timing and the overall level of Mflc-Rfs genomic and
antige-nomic RNAs (
Fig. 8B
). With the highest level of VP1, genomic and
antigenomic RNAs were more abundant at 4 hpt. Interestingly,
cells transfected to express the highest concentration of the VP1
had reduced levels of antigenomic and genomic RNAs after 8 hpt,
consistent with our previous observations that a higher
abun-dance of VP1 fails to stimulate RNA synthesis by the RdRps (e.g.,
see
Fig. 1D
and
1E
). These results corroborate those from
Fig. 7D
and
E
and show that VP1 concentration is an important factor in
regulating NoV RNA synthesis.
Finally, we investigated whether the stimulatory effect of VP1
or its SD on the MNV replicon is species specific. The GII.4 VP1,
MNV VP1, and MNV SD proteins were individually coexpressed
with the Mflc-Rfs. The MNV VP1 and its SD were able to enhance
both genomic and antigenomic RNA accumulation, although the
MNV SD had a less robust stimulatory effect than full-length VP1.
Consistent with the NoV-5BR assay and
Renilla
luciferase-ex-pressing replicon results, the GII.4 VP1 failed to enhance RNA
accumulation by the MNV replicon (
Fig. 8C
). The effect of the
VP1 and its SD on NoV replicon replication was also species
spe-cific.
DISCUSSION
Despite an emerging realization of their impact on human health,
NoVs are one of the most poorly characterized groups of small
RNA viruses due to their failure to infect cultured cells. This study
identified that VP1, the NoV major capsid protein, can modulate
viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase activity and MNV
repli-cation. VP1 was able to increase RNA synthesis in the absence of
FIG 5Recombinant VP1 S domains can interact with their RdRpsin vitro. (A) SDS-PAGE analysis of purified RdRps and SD.E. colipurified GII.4 and MNV RdRps and VP1 SDs were resolved by a 4 to 12% NuPage Novex Bis-Tris gel (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and visualized by staining with Coomassie brilliant blue. (B) Differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) profile of purified GII.4 and MNV RdRps in the presence of SDs. DSF was used to measure the stability of purified GII.4 RdRp in the presence of GII.4 or MNV SD. Each sample com-bination was tested in triplicate, and the results were duplicated in at least two independent assays. (C) Determination of thermal stability of GII.4 and MNV RdRps in the presence of their SDs by DSF. The differences between theTms of
RdRp alone and RdRp plus SD were calculated (⌬Tm). Each sample
combina-tion was tested in triplicate, and the results were duplicated in at least two independent assays. The data shown are the derivatives of the change in the fluorescence of the sample over time [-R=(T)].
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
VPg and did not produce higher proportions of VPg-RNA
mole-cules when VPg was coexpressed (
Fig. 1
and
6
). The shell domains
of GII.4 and MNV VP1s were able to stimulate RdRp activity of
the homologous polymerases when expressed in
trans
(
Fig. 3
). The
lack of VP1 expression from an MNV replicon decreased
replica-tion, while expression of VP1 or the SD of the replicon in
trans
was
able to partially restore replication (
Fig. 2
and
8
). VP1 and the SD
can form a coimmunoprecipitable complex with the RdRp, and
recombinant SD can bind RdRp in a DSF assay (
Fig. 4
and
5
).
Finally, all interactions between VP1 and its derivatives with the
replication enzymes were species specific and depended on an
optimal level of VP1 expression (
Fig. 2
,
3
, and
8
).
Viral RNA replication requires a membrane-associated
multi-subunit complex that has a number of modulatory factors to
co-ordinate the rate and kinetics of synthesis as well as to avoid
de-tection by cellular defenses (
11
,
14
,
18
). Our observation of a
VP1-RdRp interaction is consistent with and extends a previous
observation of the feline calicivirus (FCV) polymerase (ProPol)
interacting with VPg and VP1 in a yeast two-hybrid assay (
29
).
Furthermore, the finding that VP1 can enhance both antigenomic
and genomic RNA synthesis suggests that it may be an active
com-ponent of the NoV replication complex. We speculate that VP1
from the virion can gain access to the replicase during the
trans-lational disassembly of the viral particle. However, as shown in
Fig. 8
, additional VP1 proteins produced from the replicon after
the initial translation of the nonstructural proteins remain
com-petent to stimulate RNA synthesis. The stimulatory activity of VP1
on RNA synthesis likely requires contact with the RdRp rather
than an indirect effect on the RNA template, given that the
recom-binant SD can bind the RdRp in a species-specific manner. We
want to emphasize that VP1’s activity is to enhance, but not
acti-vate, RdRp and that RNA synthesis can take place, albeit at a lower
level, in the absence of VP1. Once RNA replication and
sub-genomic RNA synthesis have been initiated, the production of
VP1 boosts the level of antigenomic RNA replication, thus
pro-viding templates for genomic RNA synthesis.
The observation that the S domain of VP1 is sufficient for the
stimulatory activity suggests that the stimulatory effect is
impor-tant for viral infectivity. VP1 is one of the most rapidly evolving
proteins in human caliciviruses, with changes in the P domain
being correlated with escape from neutralizing antibodies (
8
). In
contrast, the S domain is highly conserved. The degree of
conser-vation may be related to the need for several loops in the SD to
promote species-specific interactions with the RdRp. It is also of
interest that some caliciviruses and sapoviruses express VP1 as a
fusion to ORF1. Furthermore, McCormick et al. (
31
)
demon-strated that the bovine norovirus expressed VP1 using a
transla-tional termination-reinitiation process and proposed that this
mechanism was required for functions other than RNA
encapsi-dation. All of these results support a role for VP1 to affect genome
replication.
The replicase initiates antigenomic RNA synthesis from the
genomic plus-strand for use as templates for the synthesis of both
genomic and subgenomic RNAs. VP1 interaction with the RdRp
may provide temporal regulation of NoV RNA synthesis relative
to other processes needed for successful infection. An essential
FIG 6VP1 has a modest effect on VPg-primed RNA synthesis. (A) Effect of GII.4 VP1 on its VPg-primed RNA synthesis in the 5BR assay. HEK293T cells were cotransfected with GII.4 RdRp, VPg, and VP1 along with other luciferase reporter plasmids of the NoV-5BR assay. A plus symbol (⫹) on thexaxis denotes the presence of the respective plasmids. Empty vector was added as necessary to ensure the transfection of equal amounts of the plasmids into the cells. At 36 hpt, the firefly-to-Renillaluciferase ratios were measured, and they are denoted on theyaxis. (B) Effect of MNV VP1 on its VPg-primed RNA synthesis. HEK293T cells were cotransfected with MNV RdRp, VPg, and VP1 along with other luciferase reporter plasmids of 5BR assay. A plus symbol (⫹) on thexaxis denotes the presence of the respective plasmids. Empty vector was added as necessary to ensure the transfection of equal amounts of the plasmids into the cells. After 36 h of transfection, the firefly-to-Renillaluciferase ratios were measured, and they are denoted on theyaxis. (C) Western blot analysis of GII.4 VPg immunoprecipitated from HEK293T cells expressing the GII.4 RdRp and VP1. HEK293T cells were cotransfected with RdRp, HA-tagged VP1, and FLAG-tagged VPg. At 24 hpt, the cell lysates were immunoprecipitated using anti-FLAG monoclonal antibody. The relevant masses from the molecular mass standards are shown to the left of the Western blot image. “VPg-RNA” denotes a band shifted in molecular mass from the free VPg molecule that was previously characterized in Subba-Reddy et al. (44) that VPg covalently linked to RNA. (D) Western blot analysis of MNV VPg immunoprecipitated from HEK293T cells expressing the MNV RdRp and VP1.
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
property of capsid proteins is their ability to form higher-order
oligomers during RNA encapsidation. In fact, the S domain is
sufficient for oligomerization and to form icosahedral virus-like
particles (VLPs) in the absence of the P domain (
2
). The loops in
the SD that participate in species-specific interaction with the
RdRp are also needed for VP1 subunit interactions to form VLPs.
The formation of the VLPs may act to prevent dissociated VP1
from interacting with the RdRp. Thus, when VP1 concentrations
are high and viral RNA encapsidation becomes the dominant
ac-tivity in an infected cell, the propensity of VP1 to oligomerize
would be expected to promote virion production and,
concomi-tantly, decrease the enhancement of viral RNA synthesis.
Consis-tent with this novel mode of concentration-dependent regulation,
an MNV replicon coexpressed with higher levels of VP1 resulted
in higher levels of antigenomic and genomic RNA synthesis in
RAW264.7 cells at 8 h posttransfection than replicons that lacked
VP1 expression in
trans
or had lower VP1 levels (
Fig. 8B
). We also
note that the brome mosaic virus has a similar
concentration-dependent regulatory activity on RNA translation and RNA
syn-thesis (
50
,
51
).
We observed that VP1 can enhance the polymerase activity in
the absence of VPg. Furthermore, while VP1 coexpression
in-creased the overall level of VPg in the NoV-5BR assay, it did not
affect the ratio of VPg to VPg-RNA (
Fig. 6C
and
D
). While we do
not have a definitive explanation for the observed increase in VPg
levels, it is possible that an interaction between VPg and VP1, as
observed in FCV using a yeast two-hybrid assay (
29
), may simply
stabilize or protect VPg from proteolytic degradation. Also, in the
FIG 7VP1 expression is required for efficient MNV replicon RNA. (A) Schematic representation of theRenillaluciferase expressing the MNV replicon (Mflc-R), showing the positions of the ORFs, the T7 promoter at the 5=end, and hepatitis delta virus ribozyme (3=Rz) at the 3=end. All the nonstructural proteins, p48, NTPase, p22, VPg, Pro, and RdRp were encoded by ORF1. The major and minor structural proteins VP1 and VP2 were encoded by ORF2 and ORF3, respectively. TheRenillaluciferase gene was cloned upstream of the VP2 ORF. A mutant replicon containing an RdRp active-site mutant is named MflcGGG-R. The location
of the insertion of a single adenine (A) to cause a frameshift in the VP1 ORF is denoted by the black triangle. (B) The Mflc-Rfs replicon can betrans -complemented by the MNV VP1. Cells were transfected with 100 ng cappedin vitrotranscripts of Mflc that did not express luciferase reporter and the Mflc-R, Mflc-RGGG, and Mflc-Rfs replicons. “⫺” on thexaxis denotes cotransfection with the empty vector, and “⫹” denotes cotransfection with VP1.Renillaluciferase
activity was determined after 24 hpt and is shown in relative light units (RLU). Each assay was performed in triplicate, and the means and standard errors of two independent assays are plotted. (C) Western blot analysis of RAW264.7 cells transfected with Mflc-R, MflcGGG-R, and Mflc-Rfs. RAW264.7 cells were transfected
with 100 ng of cappedin vitrotranscripts. Mock cells did not containin vitrotranscripts. Cell lysates were harvested 24 hpt, separated by SDS-PAGE, and analyzed by a Western blot using antisera to RdRp and VP1. Nonspecific host proteins that reacted to the antisera in Western blots are shown as loading controls (LC). (D) Mflc-Rfs replicon replication is recovered bytrans-complementation of MNV VP1 in a concentration-dependent way. The RAW264.7 cells were transfected with increasing amounts of MNV or GII.4 VP1 expression plasmids, as shown on thexaxis. At 12 hpt, the cells were transfected again with 100 ng of Mflc-Rfsin vitro
transcripts. The cells were lysed 24 h later for quantification ofRenillaluciferase activity (in RLU). The signal from Mflc that did not express luciferase reporter was used as the background control. (E) The MNV VP1 SD has a concentration-dependent effect on the replicon RNA replication in RAW264.7 cells. The format of the experiment was identical to that in panel D.
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
MNV replicon assays, VP1 increased antigenomic as well as
genomic RNA levels. In these assays, the increase in antigenomic
RNA in turn provides an additional template for genomic RNA
synthesis. While our results cannot absolutely rule out that VP1 is
also stimulating VPg-dependent RNA synthesis during NoV
rep-lication, the parsimonious interpretation of our collective
obser-vations is that VP1 exerts a stimulatory effect of minus-strand
RNA synthesis, which, in turn, affects the plus-strand genomic
RNA synthesis.
Our observations of a regulatory role for VP1 on HuNoV and
MNV RNA synthesis provide two additional examples of cross
talk between viral structural proteins and RNA synthesis. With the
positive-strand RNA viruses, the capsids from hepatitis C virus
and the rubella virus can affect translation as well as RNA
replica-tion (
12
,
26
,
42
,
49
). Neeleman et al. (
36
) reported that the coat
protein (CP) of alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV), a member of the
ge-nus
Alfamovirus
in the family
Bromoviridae
, can bind to the 3
=
end
of viral RNA and enhance subgenomic RNA4 translation. The
AMV CP can regulate RNA synthesis by binding to the 3
=
ends of
Alfamovirus
and
Ilarvirus
RNAs to activate genome replication (
6
,
23
). In rotavirus, VP2 can serve as a scaffold for the viral
polymer-ase as well as act as a cofactor for VP1 to initiate genome
replica-tion (
32
,
38
). The CPs of the plant-infecting brome mosaic virus
and the bacteriophage MS2 play regulatory roles in binding to
RNA elements that regulate RNA synthesis (
46
,
50
,
51
).
In summary, we report a novel interaction between the NoV
structural protein and the RdRp that modulated viral RNA
syn-thesis in a concentration-dependent manner. Our results
illus-trate that the MNV serves as a useful model system for the
regu-lation of NoV transregu-lation and replication. This work provides
additional evidence of viral structural proteins having regulatory
roles in viral RNA synthesis, an emerging theme for a number of
mammalian viruses.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research by C.C.K. was supported by the Indiana Economic Develop-ment Council. Research by I.G.G. was supported by the Wellcome Trust, and M.A.Y. was supported by the Malaysian Government.
We thank Dalan Bailey (Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright) for his input on the initial design and characterization of the MNV replicon system and our colleagues at Indiana University for many helpful and formative discussions.
REFERENCES
1.Atmar RL, Estes MK.2006. The epidemiologic and clinical importance of norovirus infection. Gastroenterol. Clin. North Am.35:275–290. 2.Belliot G, et al.2005. Norovirus proteinase-polymerase and polymerase
are both active forms of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. J. Virol.79: 2393–2403.
3.Bertolotti-Ciarlet A, White LJ, Chen R, Prasad BVV, Estes MK.2002. Structural requirements for the assembly of Norwalk virus-like particles. J. Virol.76:4044 – 4055.
4.Bok K, et al.2009. Evolutionary dynamics of GII.4 noroviruses over a 34-year period. J. Virol.83:11890 –11901.
5.Bok K, et al.2011. Chimpanzees as an animal model for human norovirus infection and vaccine development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.108: 325–330.
6.Bol JF.2005. Replication of alfamo- and ilarviruses: role of the coat pro-tein. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.43:39 – 62.
7.Bull RA, et al.2011. Comparison of the replication properties of murine and human calicivirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerases. Virus Genes
42:16 –27.
8.Bull RA, White PA. 2011. Mechanisms of GII.4 norovirus evolution. Trends Microbiol.19:233–240.
9.Chaudhry Y, et al.2006. Caliciviruses differ in their functional require-ments for eIF4F components. J. Biol. Chem.281:25315–25325. 10. Chaudhry Y, Skinner MA, Goodfellow I.2007. Recovery of genetically
defined murine norovirus in tissue culture by using a fowlpox virus ex-pressing T7 RNA polymerase. J. Gen. Virol.88:2091–2100.
11. Chen J, Ahlquist P.2000. Brome mosaic virus polymerase-like protein 2a is directed to the endoplasmic reticulum by helicase-like viral protein 1a. J. Virol.74:4310 – 4318.
12. Chen MH, Icenogle JP.2004. Rubella virus capsid protein modulates viral RNA replication and virus infectivity. J. Virol.78:4314 – 4322. 13. Chinnaswamy S, et al.2008. 2053. A locking mechanism regulates RNA
synthesis and host protein interaction by the hepatitis C virus polymerase. J. Biol. Chem.283:20535–20546.
14. Cho MW, Teterina N, Egger D, Bienz K, Ehrenfeld E.1994. Membrane
FIG 8Quantification of Mflc-Rfs genomic and antigenomic RNAs by qRT-PCR. (A) qRT-PCR quantification of MNV genomic and antigenomic RNAs at multiple time points. RAW264.7 cells were transfected with 1g ofin vitro
transcripts each of the Mflc-R (WT) and Mflc-Rfs (Fs) replicons and Mflc-Rfs with MNV VP1. Cells were harvested at various time points posttransfection, washed, and lysed, and the total RNA was extracted. Total RNA was used to reverse transcribe to cDNA, followed by quantitative RT-PCR. All RT-PCR quantifications were performed in duplicate in two independent experiments, and the average copy number and standard deviation are plotted. (B) Concen-tration-dependent effect of VP1 on Mflc-Rfs genomic and antigenomic RNAs. RAW264.7 cells coexpressing 5, 10, or 20 ng of VP1 were transfected with 1g of transcripts of Mflc-Rfs. The samples were processed as described in panel B. (C) Species-specific effect of VP1 or SD on Mflc-Rfs genomic and antigenomic RNAs. RAW264.7 cells coexpressing MNV VP1, MNV VP1 SD, or GII.4 VP1 were transfected with 1gin vitrotranscripts of Mflc-Rfs. The paired Student
ttest was used to determine the statistical difference between the tested sample and the reference sample (identified by the asterisk). ThePvalues for each pair of data are shown in parentheses. All samples analyzed were from the 16-h time point.
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
rearrangement and vesicle induction by recombinant poliovirus 2C and 2BC in human cells. Virology202:129 –145.
15. Clarke IN, Lambden PR.2000. Organization and expression of calicivirus genes. J. Infect. Dis.181:S309 –S316.
16. Donaldson EF, Lindesmith LC, LoBue AD, Baric RS.2010. Viral shape-shifting: norovirus evasion of the human immune system. Nat. Rev. Mi-crobiol.8:231–241.
17. Duizer E, et al.2004. Laboratory efforts to cultivate noroviruses. J. Gen. Virol.85:79 – 87.
18. El-Hage N, Luo G.2003. Replication of hepatitis C virus RNA occurs in a membrane-bound replication complex containing nonstructural viral proteins and RNA. J. Gen. Virol.84:2761–2769.
19. Fullerton SW, et al.2007. Structural and functional characterization of sapovirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. J. Virol.81:1858 –1871. 20. Glass PJ, et al.2000. Norwalk virus open reading frame 3 encodes a minor
structural protein. J. Virol.74:6581– 6591.
21.Gohara DW, et al. 1999. Production of authentic poliovirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (3Dpol) by ubiquitin-protease-mediated
cleavage in Escherichia coli. Protein Expr. Purif.17:128 –138.
22. Green KY.2007. Caliciviridae: the noroviruses, p 949 –980.InKnipe DM, et al (ed), Fields virology, 5th ed, vol 2. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
23. Guogas LM, Laforest SM, Gehrke L.2005. Coat protein activation of alfalfa mosaic virus replication is concentration dependent. J. Virol.79: 5752–5761.
24. Hall AJ, Curns AT, McDonald LC, Parashar UD, Lopman BA.2012. The roles of Clostridium difficile and norovirus among gastroenteritis-associated deaths in the United States, 1999-2007. Clin. Infect. Dis.55: 216 –223.
25. Hardy ME.2005. Norovirus protein structure and function. FEMS Mi-crobiol. Lett.253:1– 8.
26. Ilkow CS, Mancinelli V, Beatch MD, Hobman TC.2008. Rubella virus capsid protein interacts with poly(A)-binding protein and inhibits trans-lation. J. Virol.82:4284 – 4294.
27. Jiang X, Wang M, Wang K, Estes MK.1993. Sequence and genomic organization of Norwalk virus. Virology195:51– 61.
28. Kahan SM, et al.2011. Comparative murine norovirus studies reveal a lack of correlation between intestinal virus titers and enteric pathology. Virology421:202–210.
29. Kaiser WJ, Chaudhry Y, Sosnovtsev SV, Goodfellow IG.2006. Analysis of protein-protein interactions in the feline calicivirus replication com-plex. J. Gen. Virol.87:363–368.
30. Karst SM.2010. Pathogenesis of noroviruses, emerging RNA viruses. Viruses2:748 –781.
31. McCormick CJ, Salim O, Lambden PR, Clarke IN.2008. Translation termination reinitiation between open reading frame 1 (ORF1) and ORF2 enables capsid expression in a bovine norovirus without the need for pro-duction of viral subgenomic RNA. J. Virol.82:8917– 8921.
32. McDonald SM, Patton JT.2011. Rotavirus VP2 core shell regions critical for viral polymerase activation. J. Virol.85:3095–3105.
33. McFadden N, et al.2011. Norovirus regulation of the innate immune response and apoptosis occurs via the product of the alternative open reading frame 4. PLoS Pathog. 7:e1002413. doi:10.1371/journal.p-pat.1002413.
34. Meyers G.2003. Translation of the minor capsid protein of a calicivirus is initiated by a novel termination-dependent reinitiation mechanism. J. Biol. Chem.278:34051–34060.
35. Napthine S, et al.2009. Expression of the VP2 protein of murine noro-virus by a translation termination-reinitiation strategy. PLoS One.
4:e8390. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008390.
36. Neeleman L, Olsthoorn RC, Linthorst HJ, Bol JF.2001. Translation of a nonpolyadenylated viral RNA is enhanced by binding of viral coat protein or polyadenylation of the RNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.98:14286 – 14291.
37. Niesen FH, Berglund H, Vedadi M.2007. The use of differential scanning fluorimetry to detect ligand interactions that promote protein stability. Nat. Protoc.2:2212–2221.
38. Patton JT, Jones MT, Kalbach AN, He YW, Xiaobo J.1997. Rotavirus RNA polymerase requires the core shell protein to synthesize the double-stranded RNA genome. J. Virol.71:9618 –9626.
39. Prasad BV, et al.1999. X-ray crystallographic structure of the Norwalk virus capsid. Science286:287–290.
40. Ranjith-Kumar CT, et al.2009. Agonist and antagonist recognition by RIG-I, a cytoplasmic innate immunity receptor. J. Biol. Chem.284:1155– 1165.
41. Rohayem J, Robel I, Jager K, Scheffler U, Rudolph W.2006. Protein-primed and de novo initiation of RNA synthesis by norovirus 3Dpol. J.
Virol.80:7060 –7069.
42. Shimoike T, Mimori S, Tani H, Matsuura Y, Miyamura T. 1999. Interaction of hepatitis C virus core protein with viral sense RNA and suppression of its translation. J. Virol.73:9718 –9725.
43. Strong DW, Thackray LB, Smith TJ, Virgin HW. 2012. Protruding domain of capsid protein is necessary and sufficient to determine murine norovirus replication and pathogenesisin vivo. J. Virol.86:2950 –2958. 44. Subba-Reddy CV, Goodfellow I, Kao CC.2011. VPg-primed RNA
syn-thesis of norovirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerases by using a novel cell-based assay. J. Virol.85:13027–13037.
45. Vashist S, Urena L, Goodfellow I.2012. Development of a strand specific real-time RT-qPCR assay for the detection and quantitation of murine norovirus RNA. J. Virol. Methods184:69 –76.
46. Witherell GW, Gott JM, Uhlenbeck OC.1991. Specific interaction be-tween RNA phage coat proteins and RNA. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol.40:185–220.
47. Wobus CE, et al.2004. Replication of norovirus in cell culture reveals a tropism for dendritic cells and macrophages. PLoS Biol.2:e432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020432.
48. Wobus CE, Thackray LB, Virgin HW.2006. Murine norovirus: a model system to study norovirus biology and pathogenesis. J. Virol.80:5104 – 5112.
49. Wolf M, Dimitrova M, Baumert TF, Schuster C.2008. The major form of hepatitis C virus alternate reading frame protein is suppressed by core protein expression. Nucleic Acids Res.36:3054 –3064.
50. Yi G, Letteney E, Kim CH, Kao CC.2009. Brome mosaic virus capsid protein regulates accumulation of viral replication proteins by binding to the replicase assembly RNA element. RNA15:615– 626.
51. Zhu J, et al.2007. RNA-binding proteins that inhibit RNA virus infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.104:3129 –3134.
RETRACTED
on November 7, 2019 by guest
http://jvi.asm.org/
Retraction for Subba-Reddy et al.,
“Norovirus RNA Synthesis Is Modulated
by an Interaction between the Viral
RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase and
the Major Capsid Protein, VP1”
Chennareddy V. Subba-Reddy,aMuhammad Amir Yunus,bIan G. Goodfellow,b
C. Cheng Kaoa
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USAa; Section of
Virology, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdomb
Volume 86, no. 18, p. 10138 –10149, 2012,https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01208-12. We regret that we need to retract this article due to probable image manipulation in Fig. 6C and D. The original images used in the paper are no longer available. Dr. Subba-Reddy assembled the figure and could not be reached. Drs. Yunus and Goodfellow did not participate in making the problematic figure panels.
The paper’s overall conclusion that the norovirus major capsid protein could mod-ulate norovirus polymerase activity has been confirmed in both the Kao and the Goodfellow labs.
CitationSubba-Reddy CV, Yunus MA, Goodfellow IG, Kao CC. 2017. Retraction for Subba-Reddy et al., “Norovirus RNA synthesis is modulated by an interaction between the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and the major capsid protein, VP1.” J Virol 91:e01708-17.https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI .01708-17.
Copyright© 2017 American Society for Microbiology.All Rights Reserved. C.V.S.-R. could not be reached when asked to agree to the Retraction.