Utilization of Sialic Acid as a Coreceptor Enhances Reovirus Attachment by Multistep Adhesion Strengthening*

Erik S. BartonDagger §, Jodi L. ConnollyDagger §, J. Craig ForrestDagger §, James D. Chappell§, and Terence S. DermodyDagger §||

From the Departments of Dagger  Microbiology and Immunology and  Pediatrics and the § Elizabeth B. Lamb Center for Pediatric Research, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2581

Received for publication, May 30, 2000, and in revised form, September 11, 2000



    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Many serotype 3 reoviruses bind to two different host cell molecules, sialic acid and an unidentified protein, using discrete receptor-binding domains in viral attachment protein, sigma 1. To determine mechanisms by which these receptor-binding events cooperate to mediate cell attachment, we generated isogenic reovirus strains that differ in the capacity to bind sialic acid. Strain SA+, but not SA-, bound specifically to sialic acid on a biosensor chip with nanomolar avidity. SA+ displayed 5-fold higher avidity for HeLa cells when compared with SA-, although both strains recognized the same proteinaceous receptor. Increased avidity of SA+ binding was mediated by increased kon. Neuraminidase treatment to remove cell-surface sialic acid decreased the kon of SA+ to that of SA-. Increased kon of SA+ enhanced an infectious attachment process, since SA+ was 50-100-fold more efficient than SA- at infecting HeLa cells in a kinetic fluorescent focus assay. Sialic acid binding was operant early during SA+ attachment, since the capacity of soluble sialyllactose to inhibit infection decreased rapidly during the first 20 min of adsorption. These results indicate that reovirus binding to sialic acid enhances virus infection through adhesion of virus to the cell surface where access to a proteinaceous receptor is thermodynamically favored.



    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

The ligation of a virus particle to specific cell-surface molecules is the primary interaction between the virus and its host, and as such it is a critical determinant of viral disease outcome and a potential target for antiviral therapy. Studies with enveloped mammalian viruses, including members of the herpesvirus (1-3) and retrovirus (4-6) families, have demonstrated that viral attachment is more complex than a bimolecular interaction between a viral attachment protein and a cellular receptor. Instead, attachment strategies employed by these enveloped viruses involve multiple interactions between several viral and cellular molecules, and these interactions are often accompanied by dramatic conformational rearrangements of viral proteins. In addition, many enveloped viruses employ an adhesion-strengthening attachment strategy in which primary virus-cell interactions require low affinity adhesion of the virus to common cell surface molecules that are often carbohydrate in nature (7-9). This initial phase of attachment is then followed by higher affinity interactions between the virus and a secondary receptor on permissive cells, an event that often triggers virus entry through direct membrane fusion or receptor-mediated endocytosis (10-13).

In contrast to our developing understanding of mechanisms of enveloped virus attachment, less is known about attachment strategies of nonenveloped viruses, a group that includes several important human pathogens. The mammalian reoviruses offer a useful experimental system to dissect the contributions of discrete steps in the viral replication cycle to pathogenesis in the infected host (14). Following oral inoculation into newborn mice, serotype 1 (T1)1 reovirus strains spread hematogenously to the central nervous system and replicate within ependymal cells, resulting in hydrocephalus. In contrast, serotype 3 (T3) reovirus strains utilize neural spread pathways to gain access to the central nervous system, where they replicate in a wide variety of neurons and cause encephalitis (15, 16). Since reovirus contains a segmented genome, it is possible to link pathogenic phenotypes to individual viral genes using reassortant viruses. Using this approach, it was determined that the mode of spread in the host (17) and cell tropism in the central nervous system (18, 19) segregates with the viral S1 gene segment, which encodes the viral attachment protein, sigma 1 (20, 21). These findings suggest that reovirus tropism and disease outcome are determined by interactions between cell-surface receptors and the sigma 1 protein.

The sigma 1 oligomer has two structural domains, an amino-terminal fibrous tail, which anchors sigma 1 at each of the icosahedral vertices of the virion, and a compact globular head located at the carboxyl terminus (22, 23). T3 sigma 1 recognizes at least two cellular molecules using discrete, independently functional receptor-binding domains (RBDs). Sequences in the sigma 1 head domain of all T3 strains bind to an unknown cellular molecule that is probably protein in nature. Recognition of the sigma 1 head receptor is critical for virus binding and infection in vitro (24-30), and this interaction modulates tropism and disease outcome in infected mice (31-33). Sequences in the sigma 1 tail domain of some T3 strains confer the capacity to bind terminal alpha -linked sialic acid residues on glycosylated cell surface structures (30, 34-39). Recognition of sialic acid by the sigma 1 tail RBD can serve as a tropism determinant for some cell types in culture (38, 40); however, it is not clear whether binding to sialic acid is sufficient to permit virus entry or merely facilitates sigma 1-head receptor interactions. The mechanisms by which sialic acid binding and sigma 1 head receptor binding cooperate to achieve stable, cell-specific reovirus attachment and entry in cultured cells and in the infected host are unknown.

The presence of discrete RBDs in sigma 1 suggests that reoviruses employ multi-step binding processes analogous to those described for some enveloped viruses. However, attachment mechanisms used by reovirus may be unique, since reoviruses are nonenveloped, and both RBDs exist at a distance of a few hundred angstroms within the same viral protein. Studies to determine mechanisms by which the tail and head RBDs of sigma 1 cooperate to achieve stable virus-cell association, specific host cell tropism, and modulation of disease in the infected animal have not been possible to date, since isogenic virus strains differing only in the capacity to utilize a distinct receptor have not been available. To address these questions, we selected reovirus mutants that differ in sialic acid-binding capacity, and we used reassortant genetics to place the sigma 1-encoding S1 genes of these strains into identical genetic backgrounds. Using these strains, we demonstrate that reovirus attachment is a multistep process, with primary sialic acid binding serving as a low affinity adhesion event that accelerates virus attachment but must be followed by sigma 1-head receptor interactions to permit efficient virus entry and infection.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Cells, Viruses, and Antibodies-- Spinner-adapted murine L929 (L) cells were grown in either suspension or monolayer cultures in Joklik's modified Eagle's minimal essential medium (Irvine Scientific, Santa Ana, CA) supplemented with 5% fetal bovine serum (Intergen, Purchase, NY), 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 units/ml of penicillin, 100 µg/ml of streptomycin, and 0.25 µg/ml of amphotericin (Irvine Scientific). Suspension cultures of murine erythroleukemia (MEL) cells were grown in F-12 medium (Irvine Scientific) supplemented to contain 10% fetal bovine serum, L-glutamine, and antibiotics as for L cells. HeLa cells were maintained in monolayer culture in Dulbecco's minimal essential medium (Life Technologies, Inc.) supplemented to contain 10% fetal bovine serum, L-glutamine, and antibiotics as for L cells. Reovirus strains T1L, T3C44 (41, 42), and T3C44-MA (38) are laboratory stocks. Viral titer (expressed as plaque-forming units (pfu)/ml) was determined by plaque assay on L-cell monolayers (43). Purified virions were prepared by using third-passage L-cell lysate stocks of plaque-purified reovirus as described previously (22). Viral particle concentrations were determined by measurement of A260 using a conversion factor of 2.1 × 1012 viral particles/ml/A260 (44). Particle/pfu ratios of stocks used for viral infectivity assays were ~250:1. Murine monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) 9BG5 (G5) (45) and 5C6 (46) were purified from hybridoma culture supernatants (Cell Culture Center, Minneapolis, MN), and Fab fragments (Fabs) of each were prepared using the Immunopure Fab Purification system (Pierce) according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Generation of Reovirus Mutants Differing in the Capacity to Bind Sialic Acid-- Reassortant viruses were isolated by coinfecting monolayers of L cells with T1L and either T3C44 or T3C44-MA. Coinfections, plaque-purification, amplification of progeny viruses, and genotyping of reassortant viruses were performed as described previously (47). Two sequential rounds of reassortment were performed to obtain monoreassortant viruses that retained the S1 gene segment from the T3 parental virus with all other gene segments derived from T1L. These monoreassortant strains were designated T3/C44-SA- and T3/C44-MA-SA+, abbreviated SA- and SA+, respectively, throughout this paper. Electrophoretic mobility of monoreassortant gene segments was verified by purifying genomic dsRNA from CsCl-banded purified virions (5 × 1011 particles) using TriReagent (Molecular Research Center, Cincinnati, OH). Purified gene segments were resolved in 7% SDS-polyacrylamide gels for 550 (small class gene segments), 930 (medium class gene segments), or 1380 (large class gene segments) mA·h at constant current, stained with EtBr, and visualized by UV transillumination. Following reassortment, the S1 gene segments of both strains were amplified by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction using primers complementary to the 5'- and 3'-untranslated regions (UTRs) (48), cloned into the pCR 2.1 vector, and sequenced using T4 DNA polymerase (Sequenase 2.0, U.S. Biochemical Corp.). In addition, the S1 gene UTRs of each strain were sequenced by direct dsRNA sequencing of purified viral genomic RNA as described previously (37).

Assessment of Virus-Sialic Acid Interactions Using Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)-- Glycophorin and asialoglycophorin (1 mg/ml in PBS) (Sigma) were biotinylated by incubation with a 10-100-fold molar excess of sulfo-NHS-biotin (Pierce) at room temperature for 2 h. Biotinylated glycophorin or asialoglycophorin was injected at a concentration of 5-50 µg/ml in PBS across duplicate flow cells of a BIAcore streptavidin chip at a flow rate of 5 µl/min using a BIAcore 2000 instrument (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech). Sensor chip flow cells were coated with 1000-2000 resonance units of each protein, followed by rinsing in running buffer (Dulbecco's PBS (D-PBS)) to remove unbound protein. Purified virions of strains SA- and SA+ were injected across the conjugated chip surfaces at various concentrations at a flow rate of 25 µl/min. Following virus binding, chip surfaces were regenerated with a 1-min pulse of 1 M NaCl, 20 mM NaOH. Surfaces treated in this manner showed no significant decrease in virus-binding capacity for up to 30 cycles of regeneration. In some experiments, virions were preincubated with alpha -sialyllactose (SLL) or lactose (Sigma) at room temperature for a minimum of 10 min prior to injection. Since the refractive index of concentrated virus and saccharide solutions caused significant bulk shift effects during injection, specific binding of virions to sialic acid was calculated by subtracting resonance units measured on asialoglycophorin-coated reference surface from binding to the glycophorin-coated surface prior to data analysis. No time-dependent increase in virus binding to asialoglycophorin was detected under any conditions. Affinity constants of strain SA+ binding to sialic acid were determined using simultaneous kon/koff nonlinear regression with BIAevaluation 3.0 software (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech), assuming either a 1:1 Langmuir binding model or a bivalent analyte binding model (49-51).

Neuraminidase Treatment of Cells to Remove Sialic Acid-- Terminal sialic acid residues were removed from cell-surface carbohydrates by incubating 5 × 106 cells/ml at 37 °C for 1 h in 1.0 ml of D-PBS containing 40 milliunits/ml Arthrobacter ureafaciens neuraminidase (Sigma) (38). Cells were washed in D-PBS to remove neuraminidase, resuspended in D-PBS, and processed for binding assays.

Virus Radioligand Binding Assays-- Purified virus particles (2-4 × 1013/ml in D-PBS) were iodinated using the IODO-GEN two-step method (Pierce). Na125I (2.5 mCi) was oxidized for 6 min in IODO-GEN tubes in a total volume of 220 µl of D-PBS and then incubated with 4 ml of purified virus at room temperature for 6 min. Virus was separated from unincorporated 125I on 10-ml dextran D-Salt columns (Pierce) followed by dialysis against 4 liters of D-PBS. Labeled virus was stored at 4 °C in the presence of 10 mM NaN3, 5 mM 2-deoxyglucose, and 2 mM NaF (Sigma). Specific activity of iodinated virus was 0.5 to 1 × 10-6 cpm/particle. Greater than 85% of cpm was precipitable from iodinated virus preparations using acetone precipitation or immunoprecipitation with anti-reovirus mAbs. Iodinated virion preparations were used for up to 4 weeks after iodination. Iodination of virions did not affect sigma 1 function as assessed by hemagglutination assay or interaction with conformationally sensitive anti-sigma 1 mAb G5, and no iodination of sigma 1 was detected following SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis analysis of labeled reovirus virions.

Radioligand binding assays were designed, and data were analyzed using general guidelines and equations as described (52). HeLa cells were detached from flasks by incubation in PBS plus 3 mM EDTA at 37 °C for 30 min followed by gentle pipetting. L cells were obtained from suspension cultures. Cells were pelleted at 250 × g for 5-8 min, resuspended at 2-4 × 106/ml in D-PBS supplemented with metabolic inhibitors (10 mM NaN3, 5 mM 2-deoxyglucose, and 2 mM NaF), and incubated at 37 °C for 15-30 min to deplete cellular ATP. This treatment abolishes receptor-mediated endocytosis in HeLa cells (53) and in L cells.2 For experiments in which neuraminidase-treated cells were used, 40 milliunits/ml neuraminidase were included with metabolic inhibitors, and incubations were extended to 1 h. Iodinated virus was diluted in D-PBS containing metabolic inhibitors and Complete mini-EDTA-free protease inhibitor mixture (Roche Molecular Biochemicals; final concentration 0.5× in all binding assays). Virus and cells were incubated in 1.5-ml Eppendorf tubes at room temperature for various intervals with continuous rotation. The viability of cells incubated in this manner was not diminished for up to 8 h as determined by trypan blue exclusion. At the lowest concentrations of virus used in these experiments, equilibrium was reached within 6 h, and cell-bound virus was stable for up to 8 h. Cell-bound virus was captured by vacuum filtration onto Membra-fil MF MB filters (5-µm pore size) (Whatman), followed by rinsing for 4 s with a stream of cold PBS. Filters were air-dried, and bound virus was quantitated by liquid scintillation counting in 4 ml of BIOSAFE II fluid (Research Products International, Mt. Prospect, IL) using a Beckman LS6500 counter (Beckman Instruments). Nonspecific binding was determined at several concentrations of labeled virus by incubating duplicate samples in the presence of 0.8-1 × 1013 unlabeled virions, the maximum concentration of virus shown to compete virus without isotopic dilution. Nonspecific binding was found to be a linear function (ranging from 0.5 to 1%) of input cpm under all conditions used and did not increase with time. For competition experiments, iodinated and unlabeled virions were added simultaneously to cells. For experiments assessing the effect of SLL or Fabs on virus attachment, iodinated virions were preincubated with the indicated concentration of each reagent at 37 °C for 30 min.

For kinetic assays, virus association (kon) and dissociation (koff) binding constants were derived from the observed rate of virus binding (kobs) over time using the formula,
k<SUB><UP>obs</UP></SUB>=k<SUB><UP>on</UP></SUB><UP> · </UP>[<UP>virus</UP>]+k<SUB><UP>off</UP></SUB> (Eq. 1)
and by comparing kobs for each strain at multiple virus concentrations to exclude the contribution of koff. This method permits the simultaneous determination of kon and indirect inference of koff (52).

Assessment of Virus Growth-- Purified virions were diluted in gelatin saline or incubated at 37 °C for 30 min in PBS alone, 50 µg/ml G5 or 5C6 Fabs, or 10 mM SLL or lactose. Tissue culture medium was aspirated from cells (1 × 105/well in 24-well plates), and virus inoculum (150 µl) was allowed to adsorb to cells at room temperature. To terminate adsorption, cells were washed with 1 ml of cold PBS, inoculum was aspirated, and 1 ml of complete culture medium was added. Cells were incubated at 37 °C for various intervals, followed by two cycles of freezing and thawing to release progeny virions. Titers of infectious virus were quantitated by plaque assay on L cells (43).

Fluorescent Focus Assays of Viral Infectivity-- Unlabeled, purified virions were preincubated in PBS alone, 50 µg/ml G5 or 5C6 Fabs, or 10 mM SLL or lactose at 37 °C for various intervals. To directly measure infectivity of treated virions, virus inocula were adsorbed to confluent HeLa cell monolayers (2 × 105 cells/well) as for growth experiments. Following incubation at 37 °C for 18 h to permit completion of a single round of viral replication, cell monolayers were fixed with 1 ml of methanol at -20 °C for a minimum of 30 min. Fixed monolayers were washed twice in PBS, blocked with 5% immunoglobin-free BSA (Sigma-Aldrich) in PBS, and incubated at 37 °C for 30 min with protein A-affinity-purified polyclonal rabbit anti-reovirus serum (54) at a 1:800 dilution in PBS plus 0.5% Triton X-100. Monolayers were washed twice in PBS plus 0.5% Triton X-100 and incubated at 37 °C for 30 min with a 1:1000 dilution of anti-rabbit goat Ig conjugated with Alexa488 (Molecular Probes, Inc., Eugene, OR). Monolayers were washed twice, and infected cells were visualized by indirect immunofluorescence. Infected cells were identified by the presence of intense cytoplasmic fluorescence that was excluded from the nucleus. No background stain was noted on uninfected control monolayers. Reovirus antigen-positive cells were quantitated by counting fluorescent cells in three random fields of view per well at 100-400 × magnification.


    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Generation of Isogenic Reovirus Mutant Strains Differing in the Capacity to Bind Sialic Acid-- To dissect the contributions of discrete reovirus-receptor interactions to virus attachment and host cell infection, we used reassortant genetics to construct isogenic reovirus strains that differ only in the capacity to bind sialic acid. T3C44 is a T3 reovirus field isolate that does not bind sialic acid. This strain was adapted to sialic acid binding by serial passage in MEL cells, which only support replication of sialic acid-binding strains. The sigma 1-encoding S1 gene segment of the MEL-adapted variant (T3C44-MA) was sequenced and was found to possess a single coding mutation (Leu204 right-arrow Pro) in a region of the sigma 1 tail previously implicated in carbohydrate binding (38). However, since we thought it possible that additional mutations might have arisen in other gene segments during serial passage in MEL cells, we used reassortant genetics to place the S1 gene segments of T3C44 and T3C44-MA into the genetic background of T1L, a T1 strain that does not bind sialic acid (34, 38). Following two successive rounds of coinfection and genetic screening, two viruses were isolated that contained the S1 gene of either T3C44 (strain SA-) or T3C44-MA (strain SA+), and all other gene segments from T1L (Fig. 1). Following reassortment, the S1 genes of both monoreassortant strains were sequenced and were found to contain no additional mutations (data not shown).



View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Generation of reovirus strains that differ only in the capacity to bind virus coreceptor sialic acid. Electrophoretic mobility of gene segments of parental viruses (T1L, T3C44, and T3C44-MA) and monoreassortant viruses (SA- and SA+) is shown. Purified genomic dsRNA from each virus strain (5 × 1011 particles) was separated in three SDS-polyacrylamide gels to maximize resolution, stained with EtBr, and visualized by UV transillumination. The S1 gene segments are indicated by arrows, with large (L), medium (M), and small (S) class genes designated.

Quantitation of sigma 1-Sialic Acid Interactions Using an SPR Biosensor-- To obtain a quantitative assessment of the avidity of SA- and SA+ for sialic acid, we utilized SPR to measure interactions between virions and sialic acid residues in real time in the absence of molecular labeling. The erythrocyte glycoprotein bound by T3 strains in hemagglutination assays is glycophorin A (55), and treatment of glycophorin with neuraminidase to remove terminal sialic acid residues abrogates virus binding to this protein (37, 39). We therefore used biotin/streptavidin chemistry to attach glycophorin and asialoglycophorin to an SPR detector chip and assessed the capacity of SA- and SA+ to bind to these surfaces. The asialoglycophorin-coated chip served as a reference surface to measure nonsialic acid-dependent interactions between virus and either glycophorin or the chip surface (49, 50). We found that SA- was incapable of binding to either glycophorin or the asialoglycophorin surface, while SA+ bound saturably and specifically to glycophorin (Fig. 2A) but not to asialoglycophorin (data not shown). To confirm that binding of SA+ to glycophorin was sialic acid-mediated, we tested the capacity of SLL, a soluble trisaccharide that mimics the alpha -linked sialic acid residues of cellular oligosaccharide chains, to inhibit virus binding to the glycophorin-coated biosensor surface (Fig. 2B). SLL inhibited binding of SA+ to glycophorin in a dose-dependent manner, displaying an IC50 of ~500 µM and achieving complete inhibition at 4 mM. Preincubation of virions with 4 mM lactose had only a modest inhibitory effect on SA+ binding to glycophorin, indicating that the effect of SLL was mediated specifically by the sialic acid residue (Fig. 2B).



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Quantitation of sialic acid binding avidity of reovirus strains SA- and SA+ using SPR. Purified virions at the concentrations shown were injected over a biosensor surface using a BIAcore 2000. Sensor surfaces were coated with either glycophorin or asialoglycophorin as control. All binding data were adjusted to subtract refractive index bulk shifts and nonspecific binding to the asialoglycophorin surface, which represented less that 10% of specific binding to glycophorin using all conditions tested. A, kinetic binding of strains SA- and SA+ to sialic acid. Strain SA+ at 4 × 1013 parts/ml (a), 3 × 1013 parts/ml (b), 2 × 1013 parts/ml (c), 1 × 1013 parts/ml (d), 5 × 1012 parts/ml (e), 2.5 × 1012 parts/ml (f), or SA- at 4 × 1013 parts/ml (g) was injected across the biosensor surface, and binding was measured. Virus and buffer injection times are indicated. B, the capacity of soluble SLL to inhibit binding of strain SA+ to sialic acid was assessed by preincubation of virions with PBS (a) or with SLL at 250 µM (c), 500 µM (d), 1 mM (e), 2 mM (f), or 4 mM (g) prior to injection over the biosensor surface. Parallel incubations of virions with 4 mM lactose were used as control (b). All biosensor experiments were performed at least three separate times in duplicate using independently prepared biosensor chips. Shown are representative experiments.

Since SPR measures virus-sialic acid interactions in real time, it was possible to directly quantitate the apparent avidity, on-rate, and off-rate of reovirus for sialic acid using nonlinear regression analysis (Table I). When SA+ binding to glycophorin was analyzed in this manner, assuming a reversible, 1:1 binding model (49, 51), the avidity of virus for the glycophorin surface was 4.8 (± 1.9) × 10-9 M. In addition, analysis of SA+ binding to sialic acid suggests that this interaction is likely to be multivalent, since nonlinear regression using bivalent binding assumptions (49) more closely approximated the binding of SA+ to sialic acid (chi 2 = 0.23 ± 0.04 versus 2.3 ± 1.5 for 1:1 binding). These results indicate that a single mutation in the sigma 1 tail can confer high affinity binding of reovirus to sialic acid.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I
Equilibrium and kinetic binding constants

Growth of SA- and SA+ in L cells, MEL Cells, and HeLa Cells-- To determine whether the sialic acid-binding phenotypes of strains SA+ and SA- confer biological differences in viral tropism for discrete cell types, we assessed the yields of these strains after growth in L cells, MEL cells, and HeLa cells (Fig. 3). Murine L fibroblasts are used routinely to cultivate reovirus, and these cells do not require sialic acid binding for productive infection (34-36). Both SA- and SA+ grew efficiently in L cells, generating between 100 and 10,000 progeny pfu per input pfu. In contrast, only strain SA+ was capable of growth in MEL cells, which display an absolute requirement for sialic acid binding for attachment and infection by reovirus (38, 40). HeLa cells displayed a phenotype intermediate to that of L cells and MEL cells; both strains grew in these cells, but strain SA+ displayed an 80-100-fold increase in viral yield in comparison with SA- (Fig. 3). Thus, the capacity to bind sialic acid enhances growth of reovirus in HeLa cells but is not absolutely required for infection.



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Growth of SA- and SA+ in L cells, MEL cells, and HeLa cells. The capacity of strains SA- and SA+ to infect L cells, MEL cells, and HeLa cells was determined by adsorption of cells (1 × 105) with virus at an MOI of 1 pfu/cell, followed by incubation at 37 °C for 24 h. Virus present at 0 and 24 h was quantitated by plaque assay using L cell monolayers. Viral growth, expressed as viral yield, is equal to the log10 of pfu/ml at 24 h divided by pfu/ml at 0 h. Viral yields were assessed in triplicate experiments. Error bars represent S.D.

Effect of RBD Inhibitors on Replication of Strains SA- and SA+-- To determine the relevance of each RBD-receptor interaction during a complete replication cycle, the effect of RBD inhibitors on virus replication in HeLa cells was assessed (Fig. 4). Strains SA- and SA+ were incubated with SLL, lactose, G5 Fabs, or 5C6 Fabs prior to adsorption to HeLa cells. The mAb G5 binds to the sigma 1 head domain and neutralizes virus infection by blocking binding to the cellular receptor for the head (39, 45), and 5C6 is an isotype-matched control antibody (46). G5 Fabs reduced growth of both SA- and SA+ ~20-fold. SLL had no effect on growth of SA- but decreased growth of SA+ ~10-fold. This effect was specific, since lactose did not decrease SA+ growth. A combination of G5 Fabs and SLL almost completely inhibited growth of SA+. These data indicate that the sigma 1 head RBD of SA- alone mediates infectivity of this strain, while the sigma 1 sialic acid and head RBDs of strain SA+ cooperate to promote enhanced viral replication in HeLa cells.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Role of sigma 1 RBDs in viral growth in HeLa cells. Purified virions of SA- and SA+ were preincubated at 37 °C for 30 min with PBS alone, SLL (10 mM), lactose (LACT) (10 mM), G5 Fabs (50 µg/ml), 5C6 Fabs (50 µg/ml), or G5 Fabs and SLL combined and adsorbed to HeLa cells (1 × 105) in monolayer culture at an MOI of 1 pfu/cell. After a 24-h incubation at 37 °C, progeny virus was released by freezing and thawing cells and titrated by plaque assay on L cells. Viral growth, expressed as viral yield, is equal to the log10 of pfu/ml at 24 h divided by pfu/ml at 0 h. Viral yields were assessed in triplicate experiments. Error bars represent S.D.

Steady State Binding of SA- and SA+ to L Cells and HeLa Cells-- To determine the mechanisms by which sialic acid binding enhances reovirus infection of HeLa cells, we performed radioligand binding studies using 125I-labeled SA- and SA+ virions incubated with intact L cells and HeLa cells. Cells were ATP-depleted to inhibit endocytic processes (53) and incubated with increasing concentrations of iodinated virions until equilibrium was reached. Binding of SA- and SA+ to both L cells and HeLa cells was saturable and specific, with SA+ capable of achieving higher maximal binding and approaching saturation at lower virus concentrations than SA- on both cell types (Fig. 5, A and C). However, the difference between maximal binding levels of SA- and SA+ was greater on HeLa cells than L cells. When steady state binding results were analyzed using a Scatchard transformation (57), both strains demonstrated linear plots on both cell types (Fig. 5, B and D). Therefore, at concentrations of virus used in these experiments, these viruses recognize thermodynamically uniform receptor populations at equilibrium. The avidity (expressed as apparent KD) of SA- for L cells was 3.3 × 10-11 M, (Table I), whereas the avidity of SA+ to L cells was only slightly higher, with a KD of 2.5 × 10-11 M. The nearly equivalent avidities of SA- and SA+ for L cells are consistent with the capacity of these strains to replicate with equal efficiency in this cell type (Fig. 3). In contrast, the avidity of SA- for HeLa cells was 2.5 × 10-10 M, approximately 8-fold lower than that observed on L cells. SA+ avidity for HeLa cells was significantly higher than SA-, with a KD of 5 × 10-11 M. Thus, the capacity to bind sialic acid increases the avidity of reovirus for HeLa cells by 5-fold but has little effect on the avidity of either strain for L cells. The enhanced avidity of SA+ for HeLa cells correlates with the capacity of this strain to replicate more efficiently than SA- in this cell type and suggests that the thermodynamics of virus-cell interaction can be modulated by sialic acid binding in a manner that enhances virus infection in some types of cells.



View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Equilibrium binding of SA- and SA+ to L cells and HeLa Cells. A, saturation binding isotherms of SA- and SA+ binding to L cells. Purified virions of SA- and SA+ were radioiodinated and incubated at indicated concentrations at room temperature for 6 h with 1 × 106 cells in a total volume of 1 ml of D-PBS. Cell-associated virus was separated from free virus using vacuum filtration and quantitated by liquid scintillation. Nonspecific binding, defined by parallel incubations in the presence of 0.8-1 × 1013 particles of unlabeled homologous virus, was subtracted from each data point. Specific virus binding is presented as a function of increasing concentration of radiolabeled virus. B, Scatchard transformation of equilibrium binding data on L cells. Concentrations of free virus were directly determined by scintillation counting of 25-µl aliquots taken from several samples in A prior to vacuum filtration. Apparent avidity of each strain for L cells is expressed as KD. C, saturation binding isotherms of SA- and SA+ binding to HeLa cells. Binding reactions were performed and quantitated as for L cells. D, Scatchard transformation of equilibrium binding data on HeLa cells. Apparent avidity of each strain for HeLa cells is expressed as KD. Experiments were performed in duplicate, and average specific binding is shown. Error bars represent the range of data obtained.

Kinetic Binding of SA- and SA+ to HeLa Cells-- To determine whether sialic acid binding affects the association (kon) or dissociation (koff) rate of reovirus binding, we performed kinetic binding assays with SA- and SA+ on HeLa cells (Fig. 6). During the association phase, SA+ displayed more rapid binding and a higher final equilibrium level than SA- (Fig. 6A). When observed association rates (kobs) were assessed at various virus concentrations (Fig. 6, B and C) during the first 60 min of incubation, we found that the binding rate of each strain was proportional to the input concentration of virus, but that SA+ bound more rapidly to the HeLa cell surface than SA-. Transformation of these data to eliminate the contribution of koff demonstrated that SA- displayed a kon of 6 × 106 min-1 M-1, while the kon of SA+ was approximately 16-fold more rapid, at 1 × 108 min-1 M-1 (Fig. 6C, Table I). Thus, sialic acid binding increases the avidity of reovirus for HeLa cells by accelerating the on-rate of virus-cell interaction.



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Kinetics of attachment of SA- and SA+ to HeLa cells. Purified, radiolabeled virions of each strain were incubated with 1 × 106 cells for the times shown. Binding reactions, separation of bound from free virus, and quantitation of specific binding were performed using conditions identical to those used for the equilibrium binding studies shown in Fig. 5. A, association of strains SA- and SA+ with HeLa cells. Radiolabeled virions (3 × 1011 particles) of each strain were incubated with cells, and bound virus was quantitated at the times indicated following vacuum filtration. Nonspecific binding was calculated from parallel incubations in the presence of excess unlabeled virus. Nonspecific binding did not increase with time and is subtracted from the data shown. B and C, data used for determination of association (kon) and dissociation (koff) rate constants of strains SA- and SA+ on HeLa cells. B, cell-associated virus was quantitated following incubation of virus at the indicated concentrations for the times shown, and untransformed data were plotted as a function of time. C, to determine kobs for each concentration of virus used, data from B were replotted as ln([virus bound at equilibrium]/[virus bound at equilibrium] - [virus bound at time point]) (52). Linear regression analysis was used to determine kobs, equal to the slope of each binding curve. The kobs values from C were plotted as a function of virus concentration to calculate kon and koff in Table I. Experiments were performed in duplicate, and average specific binding is shown. Error bars represent the range of data obtained.

The derivation of kon by comparison of kobs at various virus concentrations allows the indirect inference of the koff of virus binding, since koff is independent of the free virus concentration (52). Interestingly, although SA+ displayed a higher avidity for HeLa cells than SA- under equilibrium conditions, the initial koff for SA+ was 15-fold more rapid than that of SA-. This koff would result in an initial KD of SA+ for HeLa cells of 6.8 × 10-10 M, ~14-fold less avid than that measured at equilibrium. In contrast, the kinetic KD of SA- was 7.5 × 10-10 M, similar to that obtained under equilibrium conditions (Table I). These results suggest that SA+, but not SA-, undergoes a time-dependent increase in its avidity for HeLa cells, likely mediated by a decrease in koff as binding approaches equilibrium.

Effect of Cell-Surface Sialic Acid on Cell-Attachment Kinetics of SA- and SA+-- To confirm that the enhanced attachment kinetics of SA+ are dependent on cell-surface sialic acid, we determined the effect of neuraminidase treatment of cells on attachment rates for each virus strain (Fig. 7). Preincubation of HeLa cells with neuraminidase did not significantly alter the avidity of SA- for these cells (Fig. 7A, Table I). In contrast, the binding avidity of SA+ on neuraminidase-treated HeLa cells was reduced to precisely that of SA- (Fig. 7A, Table I). The decrease in affinity of SA+ for neuraminidase-treated HeLa cells was due to a decreased rate of association of this strain (Fig. 7B). Consistent with the hypothesis that accelerated adsorption of SA+ mediates enhanced infectivity on HeLa cells, we also find that neuraminidase treatment of HeLa cells reduces viral yield of SA+ to that of SA- (data not shown). These data indicate that cell-surface sialic acid is required to enhance the attachment rate of SA+, but that the head receptor bound by these strains does not require sialylation for its function in virus binding.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   Role of cell surface sialic acid in binding of SA- and SA+ to HeLa cells. HeLa cells (1 × 106) were treated with A. ureafaciens neuraminidase to remove cell surface sialic acid prior to incubation with radiolabeled virions of each strain at the concentrations indicated. A, Scatchard transformation of specific virus binding to neuraminidase-treated cells at equilibrium. Binding reactions were performed in duplicate and quantitated as in Fig. 5. B, kinetic binding of SA- and SA+ to mock- or neuraminidase-treated HeLa cells. Radiolabeled virions (4 × 1011) were incubated with 1 × 106 cells. Cell-associated virus was quantitated at the times shown. Nonspecific binding is subtracted from all data points. The experiments were performed in duplicate, and average specific binding is shown. Error bars represent the range of data obtained.

Capacity of SA- and SA+ to Compete for Cell-Surface Receptors-- To determine whether the mutation in the sigma 1 tail that confers sialic acid binding to strain SA+ also alters the nature of the interaction between the sigma 1 head and its receptor, we tested the capacity of each strain to compete the binding of the heterologous strain to HeLa cells (Fig. 8). Strain SA- and SA+ competed their own capacity to bind HeLa cells in a dose-dependent manner, with a 50-fold excess of unlabeled virus being sufficient to reduce binding of labeled virus to the level of background (Fig. 8, A and B). Unlabeled SA+ efficiently competed binding of strain SA-, with dramatic inhibition of SA- attachment observed in the presence of a 5-fold molar excess of SA+ (Fig. 8A). The enhanced capacity of SA+ to compete binding of SA- is likely due to the accelerated kon of SA+ (Fig. 6, Table I), which would enable it to saturate cell-surface receptors more rapidly than SA-. In contrast, even a 100-fold excess SA- had minimal effect on the binding of SA+, which suggests that strain SA+ has acquired the capacity to bind an additional receptor molecule, presumably sialic acid (Fig. 8B). To test this hypothesis, HeLa cells were treated with neuraminidase to remove sialic acid, and competition profiles of each strain were repeated (Fig. 8, C and D). In the absence of cell surface sialic acid, both strains bound equivalently to HeLa cells and were capable of competing the attachment of the heterologous strains with identical efficiency. These results indicate that the head receptor bound by strains SA- and SA+ is identical and suggest that the capacity to bind sialic acid confers a competitive advantage in the capacity of strain SA+ to bind to this receptor. Furthermore, these data suggest that SA+ can associate with the HeLa cell surface in a stable manner via binding to sialic acid in the absence of sigma 1-head receptor ligation.



View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8.   Competition between SA- and SA+ for binding to HeLa cells (A and B) and neuraminidase-treated HeLa cells (C and D). Radiolabeled virions (8 × 1010 particles) of SA- and SA+ were incubated with 1 × 106 cells in a total volume of 1 ml in the presence of increasing concentrations of unlabeled homologous or heterologous strain. Cell-associated virus was quantitated after 6 h of incubation, and nonspecific binding was subtracted from each data point. A, competition of 125I-SA- binding by unlabeled SA- (white bars) or SA+ (black bars) at the indicated concentrations. B, competition of 125I-SA+ binding by unlabeled SA- (white bars) or SA+ (black bars) at the indicated concentrations. C and D, prior to binding reactions, HeLa cells were treated with A. ureafaciens neuraminidase to remove cell surface sialic acid. Final volume for virus binding reactions was 1.5 ml. C, competition of 125I-SA- binding by unlabeled SA- (white bars) or SA+ (black bars) at the indicated concentrations on neuraminidase-treated HeLa cells. D, competition of 125I-SA+ binding by unlabeled SA- (white bars) or SA+ (black bars) at the indicated concentrations on neuraminidase-treated HeLa cells. Experiments were performed in triplicate, and average specific binding is shown. Error bars indicate S.D.

Defining the Role of Sialic Acid Binding in Attachment of Infectious Reovirus Virions to Biologically Relevant Receptors-- Since the vast majority of reovirus particles (>99%) are not capable of productive infection in a plaque assay, it remained a formal possibility that biochemical assessments of the role of sialic acid binding in reovirus attachment might be applicable only to inactive particles, while infectious particles might behave differently. In addition, it seemed possible that binding to sialic acid might represent a nonproductive attachment route that is biochemically detectable but biologically irrelevant. To exclude these possibilities, we assessed the binding rates of strains SA- and SA+ using a fluorescent focus assay for attachment of infectious particles to individual cells in the presence of specific inhibitors of each sigma 1 RBD (Fig. 9). Purified virions of SA- and SA+ were titrated on L cells, and equal numbers of pfu were preincubated with either SLL, lactose, G5 Fabs, or 5C6 Fabs for 30 min. Following incubation with these RBD inhibitors, virus was adsorbed to HeLa cell monolayers for increasing periods of time, unbound virus was removed by thorough washing, and cells were incubated at 37 °C for 18 h to permit viral entry and a single round of replication. Infected cells were visualized by immunofluorescence. Both virus strains displayed a linear, time-dependent increase in numbers of infected cells (Fig. 9, A and B). However, infection rates of SA+ were dramatically accelerated in comparison with SA-, with SA+ displaying 50-100-fold more fluorescent focus units (FFU) than SA- at each time point (Fig. 9, A and B). Differences in the capacity of SA- and SA+ to generate FFU were not inherent to the assay, since these strains produce FFU with equivalent kinetics on L cells (data not shown). Preincubation with SLL significantly decreased the attachment rate of SA+ but not SA-, indicating that the enhanced rate of infection displayed by SA+ was dependent on virus-sialic acid interactions (Fig. 9B). Neutralizing mAb G5 potently and specifically inhibited infection with either SA- or SA+ (Fig. 9, A and B). These data indicate that the attachment kinetics demonstrated using purified viral particles parallel those of infectious particles and suggest that sialic acid binding enhances a productive binding pathway for reovirus virions.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9.   Role of sigma 1 RBDs in adsorption of infectious virus particles. Purified, unlabeled virions of SA- (A) or SA+ (B) were preincubated at 37 °C for 30 min with PBS, SLL (10 mM), lactose (10 mM), G5 Fabs (50 µg/ml), or 5C6 Fabs (50 µg/ml) and adsorbed to HeLa cells (2 × 105) in monolayer culture at an MOI of 10 pfu/cell at room temperature for the times shown. After an 18-h incubation at 37 °C to permit virus infection, infected cells were detected by indirect immunofluorescence using polyclonal rabbit anti-reovirus serum and anti-rabbit Alexa488. Data are expressed as FFU/well. Experiments were performed in duplicate, and average FFU are shown. Error bars represent the range of data obtained. Note that different scales are used for the y axes of A and B. The lactose data point in B is obscured by the 5C6 data point and does not differ significantly from the 90-min control sample.

Temporal Coordination of Reovirus-Sialic Acid and Reovirus-Head Receptor Interactions-- Since the capacity to bind sialic acid enhances the association rate of strain SA+ binding to HeLa cells, we hypothesized that sialic acid binding might serve as the initial interaction between the virion and the cell surface. To determine whether adhesion of reovirus to cell-surface sialic acid temporally precedes interaction of the sigma 1 head with its receptor, we compared the capacity of SLL and G5 to inhibit infection of SA+ when added at various times during the adsorption phase (Fig. 10). SLL substantially (~90%) inhibited viral infection by SA+ when added at either 30 or 0 min prior to adsorption. However, SLL exhibited a time-dependent decrease in its capacity to inhibit attachment of SA+ between 0 and 20 min of adsorption, with almost all inhibitory effect lost by 30 min of adsorption. In contrast, G5 Fabs inhibited viral infection by >75% when added at any time prior to or during adsorption (up to 45 min). These findings suggest that the enhancement of infectivity conferred by the capacity to bind sialic acid is mediated by adhesion of virus to cell-surface sialic acid as a primary step, but that this interaction is followed by transition to a sialic acid-independent interaction mediated by the sigma 1 head.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 10.   Temporal coordination of sigma 1 RBD utilization during reovirus attachment. Purified, unlabeled virions of SA+ were adsorbed to HeLa cells (2 × 105) in monolayer culture at an MOI of 10 pfu/cell at room temperature for the times shown. At times shown prior to or during adsorption, SLL (10 mM) or G5 Fabs (50 µg/ml) was added to the virus inoculum and rapidly mixed. After a 60-min adsorption, unbound virus was aspirated in 1 ml of ice-cold PBS, prewarmed tissue culture medium was added, and cells were incubated at 37 °C for 18 h. Infected cells were detected by indirect immunofluorescence using polyclonal rabbit anti-reovirus serum and anti-rabbit Alexa488. The percentage of neutralization was calculated by dividing the number of FFU present at each time point by FFU present after 60 min of adsorption in the absence of RBD inhibitor (see Fig. 9). Experiments were performed in duplicate, and the average percentage of neutralization is shown. Error bars represent the range of data obtained.



    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

To dissect mechanisms by which utilization of sialic acid as a coreceptor contributes to virus attachment and tropism, we isolated reovirus strains that differ solely in the capacity to bind sialic acid. Although we cannot formally exclude the existence of mutations in these strains in gene segments other than S1, four lines of evidence argue against this possibility. First, since T1L has been passaged in L cells since its isolation (58) and reovirus strains are exceptionally genetically stable in this cell line (47, 48), it is unlikely that additional mutations were selected in other gene segments during the few cycles of replication required to generate the monoreassortant strains. Second, SA- and SA+ demonstrate cell-specific tropism previously attributed to the S1 gene segments of their respective T3 parent strains (38). Third, the same cellular molecule is bound by the sigma 1 head of SA- and SA+, since SA+ fully competes binding of SA- on HeLa cells, and both viruses cross-compete on neuraminidase-treated cells. Finally, differences in binding, virus-induced signaling and apoptosis, and replication between SA- and SA+ in HeLa cells are mediated solely by binding to sialic acid (this report).3 Thus, SA- and SA+ represent a site-directed mutant pair that differs genetically with respect to a single amino acid, Leu204 (SA-) right-arrow Pro204 (SA+), in the sigma 1 tail domain and phenotypically in the capacity to bind sialic acid as a viral coreceptor. These strains represent the first reovirus mutants to be isolated that differ solely in the capacity to bind a known reovirus receptor.

We found that the capacity to bind sialic acid has distinct, cell type-dependent effects on reovirus growth that correlated with virus binding avidity and kinetics. MEL cells display an absolute requirement for binding to sialic acid, since SA- did not replicate in these cells. In contrast, L cells display no requirement for sialic acid binding, since both SA- and SA+ grew efficiently in these cells. Consistent with this result, we found that the steady-state avidities of these strains for L cells were equivalent. An intermediate requirement for binding to sialic acid was found for HeLa cells. Although both strains were capable of infecting HeLa cells, SA+ produced greater yields than SA-. At equilibrium, the avidity of SA+ for HeLa cells was 5-fold higher than that of SA-, and this increased avidity was attributable to an accelerated kon of SA+. Enhanced steady-state and kinetic binding of SA+ to HeLa cells required cell surface sialic acid, since the avidity and association rate of SA+ decreased to that of SA- when assessed using neuraminidase-treated cells. In contrast, although the kon of SA+ binding to L cells was modestly enhanced relative to SA-, the kon of SA- binding to L cells was as rapid as observed for SA+ binding to HeLa cells (data not shown), suggesting that this kon represents a kinetic threshold necessary for efficient viral adsorption to cultured cells. It is important to note that given the complex nature of the interactions between a multivalent viral ligand and the cell surface, binding constants derived in this study for SA- and SA+ do not represent absolute biophysical properties of any single ligand-receptor interaction occurring during the process of virus adsorption. Instead, analysis of viral binding using the assumptions of mass action enables the comparison of the relative avidity and kinetics of SA- and SA+ binding to cells.

To exclude the possibility that the accelerated binding observed for SA+ was applicable only to noninfectious particles (59), we compared the capacity of infectious particles of SA- and SA+ to bind to HeLa cells using a fluorescent focus assay that directly detects infected cells. We found that SA+ was 50-100-fold more efficient than SA- at establishing a biologically productive binding event. Enhanced kinetics of SA+ infectivity were mediated at the attachment step and were dependent on virus binding to cell-surface sialic acid, since preincubation of virus with SLL dramatically reduced the efficiency of SA+ infection. The capacity of SLL to inhibit infectious binding of SA+ was most potent when virus was preincubated with this compound, and inhibition decreased rapidly over the first 30 min of adsorption to the cell surface. In contrast, the capacity of a neutralizing antibody to the sigma 1 head to inhibit infectious attachment remained high throughout the course of the adsorption phase.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these results. First, the enhanced attachment of SA+ measured in radioligand binding experiments can be correlated with an enhanced rate of productive host cell infection. Second, enhanced attachment mediated by sialic acid binding is operant early in adsorption and may represent the initial attachment event between virus and cell. Third, virus binding to sialic acid alone is not likely to mediate efficient virus infection of HeLa cells, since interaction between sigma 1 and the head receptor continues to play a critical function after the sialic acid-mediated adsorption phase is complete. Finally, reovirus attachment is likely to be a temporally regulated process, since an early, sialic acid-dependent phase can be separated from a later, sialic acid-independent phase. This multiphasic nature of reovirus adsorption is consistent with binding constants for SA+ on HeLa cells, in which the initial KD of SA+ as determined kinetically was characterized by a rapid koff and was 14-fold weaker than the saturation avidity but transitioned at equilibrium to a higher avidity binding state.

Taken together, these findings support a sigma 1 head receptor-dominant adhesion-strengthening model of reovirus attachment (Fig. 11). For sialic acid-binding reovirus strains, the initial interaction between the viral particle and the host cell is likely to be mediated by cell-surface sialic acid. This interaction may involve multivalent virion-sialic acid interactions and has an apparent avidity of ~10-9 M as measured on a biosensor surface. By virtue of its rapid association rate, this interaction adheres the virion to the cell surface, enabling it to diffuse laterally until it interacts with the sigma 1 head receptor molecule. This secondary interaction is the only binding event available to strains that do not bind sialic acid and may be necessary and sufficient for virus endocytosis. This attachment strategy is similar to that proposed for the alpha -herpesviruses, where primary virus-cell interactions occur between viral glycoproteins and heparin sulfate, but virus penetration is facilitated by binding to one of a family of herpesvirus entry mediators (1, 2, 13, 60-62).



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 11.   A multistep model for reovirus attachment. Evidence presented in this report supports a model in which the primary interaction between a reovirus particle and the host cell is mediated by rapid but low affinity adhesion of virus to cell-surface sialic acid (SA) via residues in the fibrous tail of sigma 1. On permissive cells, this is followed temporally by transition to a higher affinity interaction between the sigma 1 head and an unidentified cell surface head receptor (HR). This secondary interaction may trigger virus internalization and initiation of infection.

Multiple mechanisms may explain the enhanced kinetics of sigma 1-head receptor interaction that are observed in the presence of sialic acid binding. The accelerated attachment rate may simply be due to an increase in relative concentrations of virus and head receptor that occurs when the virus adheres to the cell surface. Alternatively, the virus binding site on the sigma 1 head receptor may be proximal to the cell surface or otherwise sterically inaccessible to soluble virus. In this scenario, virus binding to sialic acid may serve to insert the sigma 1 head into the glycocalyx to permit interaction between this receptor and sigma 1 (63, 64). Finally, sigma 1-sialic acid interactions may induce a conformational change in sigma 1 that places the head RBD in a state that displays higher affinity for its receptor, in a mechanism analogous to CD4-induced conformational changes that expose chemokine receptor-binding residues on HIV gp120 (4-6), although a sigma 1 conformational change alone is not sufficient to enhance attachment, since incubation with SLL inhibits rather than enhances SA+ binding. Discriminating between these models will require identification and characterization of the cellular molecule bound by the sigma 1 head.

In addition to accelerating virus attachment through adhesion to the cell surface, the capacity to bind sialic acid may alter the biological outcome of reovirus infection. For example, sialic acid-binding reovirus strains may function as lectins, cross-linking sialylated cellular molecules and perturbing intracellular signaling pathways (65, 66). Alternatively, sialic acid binding may enhance the capacity of reovirus particles to induce cross-linking or activation of the sigma 1 head receptor, an event that may have downstream effects, depending on the nature of this molecule. Strain SA+ induces NF-kappa B activation in infected cells, thereby triggering apoptotic cell death (67, 68).3 Strain SA- neither activates NF-kappa B nor causes apoptosis, even at doses that result in infection of all cells in a culture.3 These results support the hypothesis that binding to sialic acid may dramatically alter steps in virus-cell interaction following attachment and entry. Accordingly, although we favor a model whereby sialic acid binding enhances reovirus infection by accelerating adsorption (Fig. 11), our data are also consistent with sialic acid-mediated signaling events enhancing yield of SA+ in HeLa cells at a post-attachment step by altering the metabolic state of the host cell.

One implication of the adhesion-strengthening model for reovirus attachment proposed here is that the relative expression levels of sialic acid and head receptor on a given cell type may determine the types of virus strains that can infect these cells. On cells that express high levels of head receptor, sialic acid may be dispensable for efficient infection; L cells may represent such a cell type. Conversely, on cells that express low levels of head receptor, sialic acid binding may be an absolute requirement for infectivity, as is the case for MEL cells. At intermediate levels of head receptor, sialylated cell-surface molecules may significantly enhance the efficiency of viral attachment, like the situation observed for HeLa cells. Finally, on cells that do not express the head receptor, binding to sialic acid may represent a "dead end" binding event that does not support viral infection. These attachment scenarios may have varying degrees of importance during discrete phases of replication in the infected animal.

Despite the fact that neuroinvasion and neurovirulence phenotypes of T3 reovirus strains have been genetically mapped to the sigma 1-encoding S1 gene, there exists little understanding of which sigma 1-receptor interactions dictate the exquisite neural tropism of these viruses. Since all detailed studies of T3 pathogenesis have used sialic acid-binding strains, the role of this receptor in neural tropism and disease is unknown. Interestingly, a sialic acid-binding T3 strain has been shown to cause apoptosis in the neonatal central nervous system (69) and heart (70), suggesting that binding to this carbohydrate may induce signaling alterations in the host as it does in cultured cells. The enhanced kon of SA+ may be particularly important in permitting spread through rapidly moving body fluid such as blood or lymph (71), where adhesion to endothelial cells might permit virus to concentrate at the cell surface in a manner analogous to selectin-mediated lymphocyte rolling (56). In addition, results from the current study suggest that sialic acid binding is critical for infectivity of cell types that express the sigma 1 head receptor at low levels, which predicts that SA+ would display expanded tissue tropism in the host relative to SA-. Future studies using these reovirus strains that differ solely in the capacity to bind sialic acid will enable us to dissect the mechanisms by which interaction of a virus with a common cell-surface carbohydrate contributes to virus-induced cell death and disease in the infected host.


    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Ray Mernaugh and Ergang Shi of the Molecular Recognition Unit, Vanderbilt Cancer Center Core Facility, for expert assistance in designing and interpreting biosensor experiments. We acknowledge the National Cell Culture Center for purification of monoclonal antibodies.


    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by Public Health Service award AI38296 from the NIAID, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (to E. S. B.), the Vanderbilt University Research Council (to E. S. B. and J. C. F.), and the Elizabeth B. Lamb Center for Pediatric Research. Additional support was provided by Public Health Service awards CA68485 (to the Vanderbilt Cancer Center), DK20593 (to the Vanderbilt Diabetes Research and Training Center), and NCI, NIH, Grant T32 CA09385 (to J. C. F).The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

|| To whom correspondence should be addressed: Lamb Center for Pediatric Research, D7235 MCN, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232. Tel.: 615-343-9943; Fax: 615-343-9723; E-mail: terry.dermody@mcmail.vanderbilt.edu.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, October 27, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M004680200

2 E. S. Barton and T. S. Dermody, unpublished observation.

3 J. L. Connolly, E. S. Barton, and T. S. Dermody, submitted for publication.


    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: T1 and T3, serotype 1 and 3, respectively; FFU, fluorescent focus units; RBD, receptor-binding domain; MEL, murine erythroleukemia; mAb, monoclonal antibody; UTR, untranslated region; SPR, surface plasmon resonance; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; D-PBS, Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline; SLL, alpha -sialyllactose; pfu, plaque-forming unit(s); MOI, multiplicity of infection.


    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES


1. Rajcani, J., and Vojvodova, A. (1998) Acta Virol. 42, 103-118[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Montgomery, R. I., Warner, M. S., Lum, B. J., and Spear, P. G. (1996) Cell 87, 427-436[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Spear, P. G., Shieh, M. T., Herold, B. C., WuDunn, D., and Koshy, T. I. (1992) Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 313, 341-353[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Dragic, T., Litwin, V., Allaway, G. P., Martin, S. R., Huang, Y., Nagashima, K. A., Cayanan, C., Maddon, P. J., Koup, R. A., Moore, J. P., and Paxton, W. A. (1996) Nature 381, 667-673[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Ugolini, S., Mondor, I., and Sattentau, Q. J. (1999) Trends Microbiol. 7, 144-149[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Berger, E. A., Murphy, P. M., and Farber, J. M. (1999) Annu. Rev. Immunol. 17, 657-700[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Haywood, A. M. (1994) J. Virol. 68, 1-5
8. Weis, W., Brown, J. H., Cusack, S., Paulson, J. C., Skehel, J. J., and Wiley, D. C. (1988) Nature 333, 426-431[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Williams, R. K., and Straus, S. E. (1997) J. Virol. 71, 1375-1380[Abstract]
10. Trkola, A., Dragic, T., Arthos, J., Binley, J. M., Olson, W. C., Allaway, G. P., Cheng-Mayer, C., Robinson, J., Maddon, P. J., and Moore, J. P. (1996) Nature 384, 184-187[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Wu, L., Gerard, N. P., Wyatt, R., Choe, H., Parolin, C., Ruffing, N., Borsetti, A., Cardosa, A. A., Desjardin, E., Newman, W., Gerard, C., and Sodroski, J. (1996) Nature 384, 179-183[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Doms, R. W., and Peipert, S. C. (1997) Virology 235, 179-190[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Whitbeck, J. C., Peng, C., Lou, H., Xu, R., Willis, S. H., PonceDeLeon, M., Peng, T., Nicola, A. V., Montgomery, R. I., Warner, M. S., Soulika, A. M., Spruce, L. A., Moore, W. T., Lambris, J. D., Spear, P. G., Cohen, G. H., and Eisenberg, R. J. (1997) J. Virol. 71, 6083-6093[Abstract]
14. Tyler, K. L., and Fields, B. N. (1996) in Fields Virology (Fields, B. N. , Knipe, D. M. , and Howley, P. M., eds), 3rd Ed. , pp. 1597-1623, Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia
15. Weiner, H. L., Drayna, D., Averill, D. R., Jr, and Fields, B. N. (1977) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 74, 5744-5748
16. Tardieu, M., Powers, M. L., and Weiner, H. L. (1983) Ann. Neurol. 13, 602-607[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Tyler, K. L., McPhee, D. A., and Fields, B. N. (1986) Science 233, 770-774
18. Weiner, H. L., Powers, M. L., and Fields, B. N. (1980) J. Infect. Dis. 141, 609-616[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Dichter, M. A., and Weiner, H. L. (1984) Ann. Neurol. 16, 603-610[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Weiner, H. L., Ault, K. A., and Fields, B. N. (1980) J. Immunol. 124, 2143-2148
21. Lee, P. W., Hayes, E. C., and Joklik, W. K. (1981) Virology 108, 156-163[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Furlong, D. B., Nibert, M. L., and Fields, B. N. (1988) J. Virol. 62, 246-256
23. Fraser, R. D., Furlong, D. B., Trus, B. L., Nibert, M. L., Fields, B. N., and Steven, A. C. (1990) J. Virol. 64, 2990-3000
24. Nagata, L., Masri, S. A., Pon, R. T., and Lee, P. W. K. (1987) Virology 160, 162-168[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Williams, W. V., Guy, H. R., Rubin, D. H., Robey, F., Myers, J. N., Kieber-Emmons, T., Weiner, D. B., and Greene, M. I. (1988) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 85, 6488-6492
26. Yeung, M. C., Lim, D., Duncan, R., Shahrabadi, M. S., Cashdollar, L. W., and Lee, P. W. K. (1989) Virology 170, 62-70[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. Duncan, R., Horne, D., Strong, J. E., Leone, G., Pon, R. T., Yeung, M. C., and Lee, P. W. K. (1991) Virology 182, 810-819[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Leone, G., Maybaum, L., and Lee, P. W. K. (1992) Cell 71, 479-488[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Turner, D. L., Duncan, R., and Lee, P. W. (1992) Virology 186, 219-227[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Nibert, M. L., Chappell, J. D., and Dermody, T. S. (1995) J. Virol. 69, 5057-5067[Abstract]
31. Spriggs, D. R., Bronson, R. T., and Fields, B. N. (1983) Science 220, 505-507
32. Kaye, K. M., Spriggs, D. R., Bassel-Duby, R., Fields, B. N., and Tyler, K. L. (1986) J. Virol. 59, 90-97
33. Bassel-Duby, R., Spriggs, D. R., Tyler, K. L., and Fields, B. N. (1986) J. Virol. 60, 64-67
34. Gentsch, J. R., and Pacitti, A. F. (1985) J. Virol. 56, 356-364
35. Pacitti, A., and Gentsch, J. R. (1987) J. Virol. 61, 1407-1415
36. Paul, R. W., Choi, A. H., and Lee, P. W. K. (1989) Virology 172, 382-385[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Dermody, T. S., Nibert, M. L., Bassel-Duby, R., and Fields, B. N. (1990) J. Virol. 64, 5173-5176
38. Chappell, J. D., Gunn, V. L., Wetzel, J. D., Baer, G. S., and Dermody, T. S. (1997) J. Virol. 71, 1834-1841[Abstract]
39. Chappell, J. D., Duong, J., Wright, B. W., and Dermody, T. S. (2000) J. Virol. 74, 8472-8479[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40. Rubin, D. H., Wetzel, J. D., Williams, W. V., Cohen, J. A., Dworkin, C., and Dermody, T. S. (1992) J. Clin. Invest. 90, 2536-2542
41. Hrdy, D. B., Rosen, L., and Fields, B. N. (1979) J. Virol. 31, 104-111
42. Dermody, T. S., Nibert, M. L., Bassel-Duby, R., and Fields, B. N. (1990) J. Virol. 64, 4842-4850
43. Virgin, H. W., IV, Bassel-Duby, R., Fields, B. N., and Tyler, K. L. (1988) J. Virol. 62, 4594-4604
44. Smith, R. E., Zweerink, H. J., and Joklik, W. K. (1969) Virology 39, 791-810[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Burstin, S. J., Spriggs, D. R., and Fields, B. N. (1982) Virology 117, 146-155[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
46. Virgin, H. W., IV, Mann, M. A., Fields, B. N., and Tyler, K. L. (1991) J. Virol. 65, 6772-6781
47. Wetzel, J. D., Wilson, G. J., Baer, G. S., Dunnigan, L. R., Wright, J. P., Tang, D. S. H., and Dermody, T. S. (1997) J. Virol. 71, 1362-1369[Abstract]
48. Wilson, G. J., Wetzel, J. D., Puryear, W., Bassel-Duby, R., and Dermody, T. S. (1996) J. Virol. 70, 6598-6606[Abstract]
49. (1994) in BIAapplications Handbook, pp. 5-1-5-12, Pharmacia Biosensor AB, Uppsala, Sweden
50. Karlsson, R., and Falt, A. (1997) J. Immunol. Methods 200, 121-133[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
51. Clark, A. J. (1927) J. Physiol. 64, 123-143
52. Limbird, L. E. (1996) Cell Surface Receptors: A Short Course on Theory and Methods , 2nd Ed. , pp. 61-122, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA
53. Schmid, S. L., and Carter, L. L. (1990) J. Cell Biol. 111, 2307-2318[Abstract]
54. Wetzel, J. D., Chappell, J. D., Fogo, A. B., and Dermody, T. S. (1997) J. Virol. 71, 299-306[Abstract]
55. Paul, R. W., and Lee, P. W. K. (1987) Virology 159, 94-101[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
56. Lawrence, M. B., and Springer, T. A. (1991) Cell 65, 859-873[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
57. Scatchard, G. (1949) Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 51, 660-672
58. Ramos-Alvarez, M., and Sabin, A. B. (1954) Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. 87, 655-661
59. Nibert, M. L., Schiff, L. A., and Fields, B. N. (1996) in Fields' Virology (Fields, B. N. , Knipe, D. M. , and Howley, P. M., eds), 3rd Ed. , pp. 1557-1596, Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia
60. Krummenacher, C., Rux, A. H., Whitbeck, J. C., Ponce-de-Leon, M., Lou, H., Baribaud, I., Hou, W., Zou, C., Geraghty, R. J., Spear, P. G., Eisenberg, R. J., and Cohen, G. H. (1999) J. Virol. 73, 8127-8137[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. Sarrias, M. R., Whitbeck, J. C., Rooney, I., Spruce, L., Kay, B. K., Montgomery, R. I., Spear, P. G., Ware, C. F., Eisenberg, R. J., Cohen, G. H., and Lambris, J. D. (1999) J. Virol. 73, 5681-5687[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Shukla, D., Rowe, C. L., Dong, Y., Racaniello, V. R., and Spear, P. G. (1999) J. Virol. 73, 4493-4497[Abstract/Free Full Text]
63. Pickles, R. J., Fahrner, J. A., Petrella, J. M., Boucher, R. C., and Bergelson, J. M. (2000) J. Virol. 74, 6050-6057[Abstract/Free Full Text]
64. Yeung, S., Bockhold, K., and Tufaro, F. (1999) Gene Ther. 6, 1536-1544[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
65. Perillo, N. L., Marcus, M. E., and Baum, L. G. (1998) J. Mol. Med. 76, 402-412[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
66. Rott, O., Charreire, J., and Cash, E. (1996) Med. Microbiol. Immunol. 184, 185-193[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
67. Connolly, J. L., Rodgers, S. E., Clarke, P., Ballard, D. W., Kerr, L. D., Tyler, K. L., and Dermody, T. S. (2000) J. Virol. 74, 2981-2989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
68. Rodgers, S. E., Barton, E. S., Oberhaus, S. M., Pike, B., Gibson, C. A., Tyler, K. L., and Dermody, T. S. (1997) J. Virol. 71, 2540-2546[Abstract]
69. Oberhaus, S. M., Smith, R. L., Clayton, G. H., Dermody, T. S., and Tyler, K. L. (1997) J. Virol. 71, 2100-2106[Abstract]
70. DeBiasi, R., Sherry, B., and Tyler, K. (1999) American Society for Virology 18th Annual Meeting, July, 10-14 , Amherst, MA
71. Williams, A. F. (1991) Nature 352, 473-474[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]


Copyright © 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.