A Highly Selective CCR2 Chemokine Agonist Encoded by Human Herpesvirus 6*

Hans R. LüttichauDagger §, Ian Clark-Lewisdagger||, Peter Ø. Jensen**, Claus Moser**, Jan Gerstoft§, and Thue W. SchwartzDagger

From the Dagger  Laboratory for Molecular Pharmacology, Panum Institute, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark, the § Department for Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark, the || Biomed Research Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4, and the ** Department for Clinical Microbiology, Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark

Received for publication, November 6, 2002, and in revised form, January 16, 2003

    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

The chemokine-like, secreted protein product of the U83 gene from human herpesvirus 6, here named vCCL4, was chemically synthesized to be characterized in a complete library of the 18 known human chemokine receptors expressed individually in stably transfected cell lines. vCCL4 was found to cause calcium mobilization as efficiently as the endogenous chemokine ligand CCL2 through the CCR2 receptor, whereas the virally encoded chemokine did not affect any of the other 17 human chemokine receptors tested. Mutual cross-desensitization between CCL2 and vCCL4 was demonstrated in the CCR2-transfected cells. The affinity of vCCL4 for the CCR2 receptor was 79 nM as determined in competition binding against radioactively labeled CCL2. In the murine pre-B lymphocyte cell line L1.2 stably transfected with the CCR2 receptor, vCCL4 acted as a relatively low potency but highly efficacious chemoattractant being equally or more efficacious in causing cell migration than CCL2 and CCL7 and considerably more efficacious than CCL8 and CCL13. It is concluded that human herpesvirus 6 encodes a highly selective and efficacious CCR2 agonist, which will attract CCR2 expressing cells, for example macrophages and monocytes, conceivably for the virus to infect and to establish latency in. It is suggested that vCCL4 during reactivation of the virus in for example monocyte-derived microglia could perhaps be involved in the pathogenesis of the CCR2-dependent disease, multiple sclerosis.

    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6)1 was identified in 1986 (1). Subsequently, it has been shown that over 95% of people older than 2 years are seropositive for HHV6 (2). The primary infection with HHV6 can give rise to exanthema subitum, also known as roseola infantum or the sixth disease (2). The course is generally benign, but complications such as seizures, meningitis, and encephalitis are well recognized (2). HHV6 is known to establish latency in its host and to be highly neurotropic (2). HHV6 has been suggested as an agent involved in multiple sclerosis (MS) (2); however, the ubiquitous presence of HHV6 in the human population from an early age on combined with the frequent finding of HHV6 in the central nervous system of infected persons has made it difficult to determine whether reactivation of HHV6 in the central nervous system is in fact implicated in plaque formation in multiple sclerosis or whether the virus is just an innocent bystander (2).

Large DNA viruses such as poxviruses and herpesviruses encode proteins, which interfere with their host immune system. Several of these immune-evasive genes encode proteins, which target the chemokine system. Chemokines are 70-80 amino acid proteins with well characterized three-dimensional structures that are involved in attracting and activating distinct leukocyte subsets (3, 4). The current number of endogenous human chemokine genes is approaching 50. These can be divided into four subfamilies on the basis of the pattern and number of the conserved cysteine residues located near their N termini, which are involved in disulfide binding formation. In the CC family the two N-terminal cysteines are adjacent, and in the CXC family and CX3C family the two residues are separated by a single amino acid and by three amino acids, respectively, whereas in the XC family only one cysteine is present.

Chemokines act through seven-transmembrane receptors, G protein-coupled receptors of which we today know 10 CC chemokine receptors, six CXC receptors, one CX3C receptor (CX3CR1), and one XC receptor (XCR1) (4, 5).

Among herpesvirus cytomegalovirus or HHV5 (6), HHV6 (7, 8), HHV7 (9), and HHV8 (10) are all known to encode chemokine-like proteins and/or chemokine receptors. For most of these receptors the function has not yet been identified, except in the case of the open reading frame 74 CXC chemokine receptor from HHV8, which apparently is crucially involved in the angiogenic lesions in Kaposi's sarcoma (11-13) and the CC/CX3C chemokine receptor US28 receptor from cytomegalovirus, which appears to be involved in the cellular transfer of virus and as a chemokine scavenger (14, 15).

The virally encoded chemokine proteins have rather different pharmacological phenotypes. Thus, we found that the HHV8-encoded vMIP-II functions as a broad spectrum chemokine antagonist, whereas the MC148 chemokine encoded by the poxvirus Molluscum contagiosum is a highly selective CCR8 antagonist (16-18). Other groups have characterized the CC chemokines vMIP-I and vMIP-III, which are also encoded by HHV8 as being CCR4 and CCR8 agonists, respectively (19-21). Cytomegalovirus encodes two CXC chemokines, vCXC1 and vCXC2 (22), of which vCXC1 has been characterized as a CXCR2 agonist (23). vMIP-II was shown to function in vivo as an efficient immunosuppressive agent in a rat model for glomerulonephritis and rat model for spinal cord contusion (24, 25).

HHV6 encodes two putative chemokine receptors and a chemokine-like protein, which based on its primary structure, is predicted to be either a CC or a CX3C chemokine (Fig. 1). In the present study we show that the HHV6 U83 gene encodes a CC chemokine, which functions as a highly selective and efficacious agonist for the human CCR2 receptor both in respect of signal transduction and the ability to induce chemotaxis. In analogy with the two cytomegalovirus-encoded chemokines vCXC1 and vCXC2, we suggest that the U83 gene product be named vCCL4 because it is the fourth human herpesvirus-encoded CC chemokine to be characterized, and this name is used throughout the present paper.


View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Alignment of selected CCR2 ligands to vCCL4. CCL2, CCL7, CCL8, CCL11, CCL13, CCL16, and vCCL4 were aligned using the ClustalW 1.8. Identical amino acids are shown white on black, whereas similar amino acids are shown with white on gray. Asterisks indicate Cys residues. The region in vCCL4 with the CC/CX3C chemokine motif is shown magnified in a box.


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

U-83 Constructs-- U83 was cloned from HHV6B DNA bought from Autogen Bioclear England into the pTej8 vector using standard techniques. The sequence of the gene was similar to GenBankTM accession number 405187. To knock-out two reported splice sites, another construct was made with two silent mutations (167TACCTG172 to 167TGCCAG172 and 244TACCTG249 to 244TATTTG249).

Recombinant Protein-- To purify vCCL4, the same method that had been successfully used for MC148 was applied with minor modifications. In brief COS-7 cells and CHO cells were transiently transfected with the two U83 constructs by a calcium phosphate precipitate method with addition of chloroquine. Serum- and phenol red-free medium was collected 24 h after transfection. The medium was centrifuged at 1500 × g for 20 min, the supernatant was adjusted to pH 9.5 and filtered through 0.22-µm filters (Nalgene, Rochester, NY). The medium was diluted with water 1:1 to decrease ionic strength and loaded on anion exchange SP-Sepharose columns (Amersham Biosciences). The columns were washed with 20 mM ethanolamin buffer, pH 9.5, and the protein was eluted with 2 M NaCl in the same buffer. The eluate was made 0.2% in trifluoroacetic acid, filtered and loaded on a C8 (Vydac, Hesperia, CA) column for reverse-phase HPLC from where bound material was eluted with 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid in water on a gradient of CH3CN. We tried to identify the elution position of vCCL4 by mass spectroscopy of different protein fractions.

Chemokines-- vCCL4 (21-113 from GenBankTM NC 000898), CCL2, CCL7, CCL8, CCL13, and CCL27 were chemically synthesized as described previously (26). Mass spectroscopy and HPLC of vCCL4 revealed a monomeric protein with the predicted molecular mass of 9957 Da. CXCL8 was expressed in Escherichia coli and purified in-house. CCL1, CCL5, CCL11, CCL16, CXCL12, CXCL16, CX3CL1, and murine XCL1 were bought from R & D (Minneapolis, MN), whereas CCL25 and CXCL11 were bought from PeproTech (Rocky Hill, NJ). CCL20 was kindly provided by Tim Wells (Serono, Geneva, Switzerland). CCL21 and CCL22 were kindly provided by Thomas Schall (ChemoCentryx). CXCL13 was kindly provided by Bernhard Moser (Thedor-Kocher Institute, Bern, Switzerland).

Stable Cell Lines-- CCR2b and CCR8 were transfected into the murine pre-B cell line 300.19 by electroporation, and stable transfectants were obtained after limiting dilution and chemical selection with G418 and subsequently functional selection by testing the clones for calcium response to CCL2 and CCL1, respectively. Kuldeep Neote (Pfizer, Groton, CT) kindly provided 300.19 cells expressing the CXCR3 receptor, and Bernhard Moser (Thedor-Kocher Institute) kindly provided 300.19 cells expressing the CXCR5 receptor.

CCR10 and CXCR6 were transfected into the murine pre-B cell line L1.2 by electroporation, and stable transfectants were obtained after limiting dilution and chemical selection with G418 and subsequently functional selection by testing the clones for calcium response to CCL27 and CXCL16, respectively. The L1.2 cell lines expressing the CCR2b, CCR3, and CCR7 receptors were established at ICOS (Seattle, WA). The L12 cells stably expressing CCR4, CCR6, XCR1, and CX3CR1 were a kind gift from Osamu Yoshie (Kinki University, Osaka, Japan).

The CHO cells stably expressing CCR1, CCR2b, CCR5, CXCR1, CXCR2, and CXCR4 were generously provided by Tim Wells (Serono). Gabriel Marquez (Autonomous University, Madrid, Spain) kindly provided HEK293 stably expressing the CCR9 receptor.

Binding-- Whole cell binding (2 × 105 cells/well) was performed at 4 °C for 3 h in 0.5 ml of 25 mM Hepes buffer containing 1 mM CaCl2 and 5 mM MgCl2 at pH 7.2, supplemented with 0.5% bovine serum albumin on CHO cells stably transfected with CCR2. The incubation was stopped by washing four times with 0.5 ml of ice-cold binding buffer made 0.5 mM in NaCl. Cell-associated radioactivity was determined after extraction of the cells with 8 M urea in 3 M acetic acid supplemented with 1% Nonidet P-40. Nonspecific binding, determined in the presence of the relevant chemokine peptide (0.1 µM), was subtracted. 125I-CCL2 (IM280) was obtained from Amersham Biosciences.

Calcium Flux-- The cells stably transfected with various chemokine receptors were loaded with Fura-2 acetoxy methyl (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) in RPMI with 1% fetal calf serum for 20-30 min, aliquots were made of 1 × 106 cells, and each aliquot was pelleted and resuspended in RPMI with 10 mM EGTA. Fluorescence was measured on a Jobin Yvon FluoroMax-2 (Jobin Yvon Spex, Edison, NJ) as the ratio of emission at 490 nm when excited at 340 and 380 nm, respectively.

Chemotaxis-- Chemotaxis was measured using 24-transwell polycarbonate 3-µm membranes (Corning Costar, Cambridge, MA). Chemokines were diluted in 0.6 ml of chemotaxis buffer (RPMI medium containing 0.5% bovine serum albumin) and added to the lower chemotaxis chamber. 1 × 106 CCR2/L1.2 cells were resuspended in 0.1 ml of chemotaxis buffer and added to the top chamber insert. Chemotaxis plates were then incubated for 4 h at 37 °C in a 5% CO2-humidified incubator. After the incubation the cells from the bottom well were collected and counted by a fluorescence-activated cell sorter (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ).

    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Initially we tried to express the U83 gene in transfected COS-7 and CHO cells and purify the protein on an anion exchange column and HPLC as described previously (17), but we were unable to recover the protein. One possible explanation could be that the transcript was spliced in uninfected cells (splicing is normally silenced under viral replication), resulting in a protein truncated 8 amino acids after the CC chemokine motif (27). Therefore two internal splice-sites were removed with silent mutations. This construct was transfected into CHO cells, but again no protein could be recovered. Using prediction servers the precursor protein of the U83 gene product was predicted to have one cleavage site for a signal peptide between residues 20 and 21, and the supposed secreted form of the viral chemokine was produced synthetically. This predicted N terminus was identical to the one reported from a group, who expressed a fusion construct of the U83 and a IgG gene in mammalian cells and did amino acid sequence analysis of the purified protein (28). The synthetic vCCL4 protein was used for receptor activation studies, receptor binding studies, and chemotaxis assays.

To screen for a possible interaction of vCCL4 with the known chemokine receptors, vCCL4 was probed in calcium mobilization assays on a panel of cell lines individually expressing the 18 known human chemokine receptors. Initially, 1 µM of vCCL4 was used in these assays. vCCL4 was unable to elicit a calcium response through 17 of the 18 human chemokine receptors. However, in 300.19 cells stably transfected with CCR2, vCCL4 gave a robust calcium response similar in magnitude to the response elicited by CCL2, the major endogenous CCR2 ligand. The same concentration of vCCL4 was for example unable to induce a calcium response in CX3CR1 L12-transfected cells, indicating that the U83 gene product is indeed a CC chemokine. In contrast, vCCL4 was not able to induce a calcium response in 300.19 cells stably transfected with for example CXCR3 and CXCR5 (Fig. 2), showing that the effect was mediated through CCR2 and not an endogenous receptor in 300.19 cells.2 vCCL4 did not act as an antagonist on any of the tested human chemokine receptors because pretreatment of the cell lines with vCCL4 was unable to inhibit or block the response to the relevant endogenous chemokine through any of the human chemokine receptors tested as seen in (Fig. 2). However, in the CCR2-transfected 300.19 cells a diminished response to CCL2 was observed after pretreatment with 1 µM of vCCL4 (Fig. 2). This inhibitory effect is due to specific desensitization (see below).


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Effect of synthetic vCCL4 on calcium mobilization on a panel of cell lines stably transfected with humane chemokine receptors. 10-6 M of vCCL4 or vehicle were first added to the cells followed by a submaximal dose of an appropriate endogenous human chemokine. The height of the response with the endogenous ligand only, the height of the response with vCCL4 only, and the height of the endogenous ligand after the addition of vCCL4 was measured. The upper panel shows the response of vCCL4 compared with the response of endogenous ligand with S.E. as indicated (n = 2). The lower panel shows the inhibition with vCCL4 of the response of endogenous ligand compared with the response with endogenous ligand only with S.E. as indicated. The chemokine concentrations used were: CCR1, 10-8 M CCL5; CCR2, 10-9 M CCL2; CCR3, 10-8 M CCL7; CCR4, 10-8 M CCL22; CCR5, 10-8 M CCL5; CCR6, 10-8 M CCL20; CCR7, 10-9 M CCL21; CCR8, 10-8 M CCL1; CCR9, 10-8 M CCL25; CCR10, 10-8 M CCL27; CXCR1, 10-8 M CXCL8; CXCR2, 10-8 M CXCL8; CXCR3, 10-9 M CXCL11; CXCR4, 10-8 M CXCL12; CXCR5, 10-8 M CXCL13; CXCR6, 10-8 M CXCL16; XCR1, 10-7 M mXCL1; and CX3CR1, 10-8 M CX3CL1.

To characterize the affinity of vCCL4 and compare this affinity with known endogenous human CCR2 ligands, we did binding studies on CHO cells stably transfected with the CCR2 receptor using 125I-CCL2 (Fig. 3). vCCL4 displaced 125I-CCL2 from the CCR2 receptor with an affinity of 79 nM. In contrast, the endogenous human CCR2 ligands all belonging to the proteins in the previously designated monocyte chemoattractant protein family of chemokines bound the receptor with higher affinity. Thus, the IC50 values were 0.08 nM for CCL2, 3.1 nM for CCL7, 2.7 nM for CCL8, and 2.2 nM for CCL13. CCL11 was found to have a comparable affinity of 72 nM, whereas the affinity of CCL16 was higher (>100 nM; data not shown).


View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Competition binding experiments with synthetic vCCL4 and selected endogenous CCR2 ligands on CHO cells stably transfected with CCR2. black-square, CCL2; black-down-triangle , CCL7; black-triangle, CCL8; black-diamond , CCL13; , vCCL4 (n = 3).

As shown in Fig. 4 1 µM of vCCL4 induced a maximal calcium response through CCR2 in stably transfected 300.19 cells. In these cells CCL2 was found to have an EC50 of 0.7 nM, whereas the EC50 values were 2.2 nM for CCL7, 15.4 nM for CCL8, 8.2 nM for CCL13, and 156 nM for the HHV6-encoded vCCL4, values that correlated well with the affinities found in binding experiments in the CCR2-transfected CHO cells. As shown in Fig. 4, vCCL4 was able to cross-desensitize the response of 1 nM of CCL2 and vice versa, indicating that the effect of vCCL4 is indeed mediated through the common CCR2 receptor.


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Dose-response and cross-desensitization calcium mobilization experiments using synthetic vCCL4 and selected endogenous CCR2 ligands for 300.19 cells stably transfected with CCR2. Top panel, dose-response experiments with vCCL4, CCL2, CCL7, CCL8, and CCL13 at concentrations of 10-6, 10-7, 10-8, 10-9, and 10-10 M or vehicle. Ligand was added to the cells at 50 s. One representative assay of three is shown for CCL2, CCL7, CCL13, and vCCL4, and of two assays are shown for CCL8. Bottom panel, cross-desensitization experiments with vCCL4 and CCL2. Vehicle, vCCL4, or CCL2 were added at 50 s followed by either vCCL4 or CCL2 at 250 s. 10-6 M of vCCL4 or 10-9 M of CCL2 were used. One representative assay of two is shown.

The chemotactic activity of vCCL4 was compared with that of the endogenous human chemokines from the monocyte chemoattractant protein family in the murine pre-B lymphocyte cell line L1.2 stably transfected with the human CCR2 receptor (Fig. 5). The endogenous chemokines demonstrated different patterns with respect to both efficacy and potency. Thus, CCL2 and to a certain degree also CCL7 both showed high potency and high efficacy, whereas CCL13 had a poor potency and a rather poor efficacy, and CCL8, although it is of rather high potency, showed a very limited efficacy. All of the endogenous chemokines demonstrated the classical bell-shaped dose-response curve in the chemotactic experiments (Fig. 5). Surprisingly the efficacy of vCCL4 was very high, and in fact it is unclear whether the maximal response was even reached with the available amount of the virally encoded protein (Fig. 5). The chemotactic response to vCCL4 was at least as high as that of CCL2 and CCL7 and much higher than that of CCL13 and CCL8.


View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Effect of synthetic vCCL4 and selected endogenous CCR2 ligands on chemotactic activity for L12 cells stably trans fected with CCR2. black-square, CCL2; black-down-triangle , CCL7; black-triangle, CCL8; black-diamond , CCL13; , vCCL4. The top panel illustrates relative efficacy of CCR2 ligands, whereas the bottom five panels show individual chemotactic curves for the five CCR2 ligands. The average cell count for each assay for each individual ligand is shown.


    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

In the present study we find that the chemokine-like protein product of the U83 gene from HHV6B vCCL4 acts as a highly efficacious but relatively low potency agonist for the human CCR2 receptor. Thus, the virally encoded chemokine could serve a role initially in the infectious life cycle of the virus by attracting, for example, macrophages and monocytes, which express the CCR2 receptor, to infect and establish latency in them. During reactivation of latent virus in monocyte-derived microglia in the central nervous system, vCCL4 could be involved in the pathogenesis of MS, which at least in experimental animals is known to be totally dependent on the presence of a functional CCR2 receptor (29, 30).

vCCL4 Protein-- The vCCL4 protein has very limited homology with the known human chemokines; however, it is clearly a chemokine protein because it has the required disulfide pattern (Fig. 1). The notion that vCCL4 has a very long N-terminal extension of 27 amino acid residues is particularly interesting because often important structural epitopes related to receptor activation are located in the N-terminal extension of chemokines. Thus, the N-terminal of vCCL4 lacks the glutamine in the first position that is conserved among all human endogenous CCR2 ligands and when missing has been found to reduce the biological activity of for example CCL2 100-1000-fold (31, 32). Moreover, a potential glycosaminoglycan (GAG)-binding epitope, BBXB (B being a basic residue) (33), is found right before the third Cys residue, which very likely forms a disulfide bridge back to the first Cys of the protein. This location would place the GAG-binding epitope in a loop region conceivably optimally exposed for interaction with GAGs in the tissue. It is in fact very likely that vCCL4 is a good GAG-binding chemokine because it has an additional potential basic pair located in the opposite end of the canonical three-dimensional structure of the molecule.

Endogenous CCR2 Ligands-- Most studies with CCR2 ligands have been done on primary cells especially monocytes. So when comparing data it is important to bear in mind that primary cells express multiple chemokine receptors and that the CCR2 ligands CCL7, CCL8, and CCL13 can activate CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5 in addition to CCR2. Other groups using CCR2-transfected cells have found binding affinities of the four members of the monocyte chemoattractant protein family in the nanomolar range, which are in agreement with our results (34, 35) except that we found CCL2 to have an affinity in the subnanomolar range, which probably is due to cell line and assay differences. The finding that CCL8 and CCL13 were unable displace all bound 125I-CCL2 from CCR2 are known from other binding studies on monocytes and CCR2-transfected cell lines (35-38), where one group even reported increasing binding of 125I-CCL2 with increasing concentrations of CCL8 (36), a phenomenon known from other chemokines in binding assays and that probably is due to fact that certain chemokines tend to oligomerize (39). The potencies in chemotaxis for CCL2, CCL7, and CCL13 were in agreement with another study using a CCR2-transfected 300.19 murine pre-B cell line (38).

vCCL4 and the HHV6 Lifecycle-- Why does HHV6 specifically target the CCR2 receptor? In this connection it should be noted that a herpesvirus, in addition to having the capacity to generate a productive infection, should be able to establish latency in certain cell types, where it can hide from the immune system waiting for the moment, when it will be reactivated. HHV6 can replicate in several cell types, for example T cells and macrophages/monocytes (2), and HHV6 can be recovered from macrophages from normal adult human beings, indicating that HHV6 establishes latency in this cell type (40). CCR2 is known to be expressed on macrophages and lymphocytes (4). Thus, it could be speculated that HHV6 has optimized vCCL4 to attract T cells and macrophages/monocytes, to infect them, and to establish latency at least in the monocyte/macrophage lineage. It is interesting that human immunodeficiency virus seems to have chosen the same strategy to exploit the chemokine system as the human immunodeficiency virus-encoded Tat protein when it acts as a CCR2 agonist capable of attracting monocytes and thereby favor rapid spread of infection (41).

vCCL4 as a CCR2 Agonist-- vCCL4 appears to be a highly efficacious but relatively low potency agonist for CCR2. Obviously, the potency of a ligand should be compared with the actual available concentrations of the ligand, which for vCCL4 at present is unknown but could be considerable locally around a HHV6-infected cell because of a potential highly efficient expression and the potential efficient GAG binding, which is discussed above. In a previous study Zou and co-workers (28) found that a protein consisting of the U83 chemokine domain fused to an IgG molecule was biologically active because this molecule could induce chemotaxis and calcium mobilization in the monocytic THP-1 cell line. The THP-1 cells are known to express at least the CCR1, CCR2, CCR5, and CX3CR1 chemokine receptors, and no attempt was done in that study to identify the specific target receptor for the U83 gene product (42, 43). The present study indicates that the fusion protein conceivably acted through CCR2 receptors on the THP-1 cells.

Despite its high efficacy, it is still puzzling that the HHV6-encoded chemokine has 25-1000-fold less affinity compared with the endogenous human ligands. In general it is not uncommon that viral homologues of cytokines have less affinity than their endogenous mammalian counterparts. This is the case for example for the HHV8-encoded viral chemokine vMIP-III, which has been characterized to be a low affinity CCR4 agonist (19). Also the EBV-encoded IL-10 homologue has a 1000-fold less affinity to the human IL-10 receptor than endogenous IL-10 (44), and the HHV8-encoded IL-6 homologue has a 10-fold less affinity to the human IL-6 receptor than endogenous IL-6 (45). Similarly, poxvirus homologues of the epidermal growth factor (EGF) have 10-1000-fold lower affinity to the EGF receptor than endogenous EGF (46). Importantly, in the latter study the viral EGF homologues were in respect of mitogenic activity even more potent than their mammalian counterparts because of attenuation of receptor degradation leading to a sustained signal transduction. These results underline the point that viral homologues of human gene products can be significantly different from their human counterparts not just quantitatively but also qualitatively.

vCCL4 and Possible HHV6-associated Diseases-- MS is regarded as an autoimmune disease with a likely environmental trigger (47). Many viral candidates have been suggested during the years as being involved in MS. In recent years HHV6 has attracted much attention as the virus is neurotropic and in a number of studies and reports has been linked to MS. For example, strong IgM responses to HHV6 have been detected in MS patients (48, 49), HHV6 has been detected in oligodendrocytes around MS plaques (49, 50), and clinical cases have been reported where active HHV6 infection was closely associated with demyelinative disease (51-53). Importantly, experiments have shown that mice deleted for CCR2, in contrast to mice deleted for CCR5, are resistant to experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (29, 30, 54). Thus, it could be speculated that when HHV6 residing latently in the central nervous system is reactivated, vCCL4 is produced, and CCR2 expressing lymphocytes and macrophages are recruited. In this way HHV6 could be one factor among others in the generation of the autoimmune response seen in MS. The identification of vCCL4 in active plaques with immunohistochemistry and the development of vCCL4 transgenic mice could help to clarify these questions.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank Professor Ulrik Gether for use of the spectrofluorometer.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by the Danish Foundation for Multiple Sclerosis (to H. R. L. and T. W. S.) and by grants from the Danish Medical Research Council (to T. W. S.).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.

dagger This paper is dedicated to Ian Clark-Lewis, who sadly and suddenly passed away on December 30, 2002.

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Lab. for Molecular Pharmacology, Panum Institute 18/6, Blegdamsvej 3, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. Tel.: 45-3532-7604; Fax: 45-3532-7610; E-mail: hrl@molpharm.dk.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, January 27, 2003, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M211329200

2 For example 300.19 cells are known to express an endogenous CXCR4 receptor.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: HHV6, human herpesvirus 6; CHO, Chinese hamster ovary; MIP, macrophage inflammatory protein; MS, multiple sclerosis; HPLC, high pressure liquid chromatography; GAG, glycosaminoglycan; IL, interleukin; EGF, epidermal growth factor.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1. Salahuddin, S. Z., Ablashi, D. V., Markham, P. D., Josephs, S. F., Sturzenegger, S., Kaplan, M., Halligan, G., Biberfeld, P., Wong-Staal, F., Kramarsky, B., and Gallo, R. C. (1986) Science 234, 596-601[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Braun, D. K., Dominguez, G., and Pellett, P. E. (1997) Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 10, 521-567[Abstract]
3. Rollins, B. J. (1997) Blood 90, 909-928[Free Full Text]
4. Murphy, P. M., Baggiolini, M., Charo, I. F., Hebert, C. A., Horuk, R., Matsushima, K., Miller, L. H., Oppenheim, J. J., and Power, C. A. (2000) Pharmacol. Rev. 52, 145-176[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Murphy, P. M. (2002) Pharmacol. Rev. 54, 227-229[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Chee, M. S., Satchwell, S. C., Preddie, E., Weston, K. M., and Barrell, B. G. (1990) Nature 344, 774-777[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Milne, R. S., Mattick, C., Nicholson, L., Devaraj, P., Alcami, A., and Gompels, U. A. (2000) J. Immunol. 164, 2396-2404[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Isegawa, Y., Ping, Z., Nakano, K., Sugimoto, N., and Yamanishi, K. (1998) J. Virol. 72, 6104-6112[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Nicholas, J. (1996) J. Virol. 70, 5975-5989[Abstract]
10. Arvanitakis, L., Geras-Raaka, E., Varma, A., Gershengorn, M. C., and Cesarman, E. (1997) Nature 385, 347-350[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Bais, C., Santomasso, B., Coso, O., Arvanitakis, L., Raaka, E. G., Gutkind, J. S., Asch, A. S., Cesarman, E., Gershengorn, M. C., Mesri, E. A., and Gerhengorn, M. C. (1998) Nature 391, 86-89[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Rosenkilde, M. M., Kledal, T. N., Brauner-Osborne, H., and Schwartz, T. W. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 956-961[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Yang, T. Y., Chen, S. C., Leach, M. W., Manfra, D., Homey, B., Wiekowski, M., Sullivan, L., Jenh, C. H., Narula, S. K., Chensue, S. W., and Lira, S. A. (2000) J. Exp. Med. 191, 445-454[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Kledal, T. N., Rosenkilde, M. M., and Schwartz, T. W. (1998) FEBS Lett. 441, 209-214[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Bodaghi, B., Jones, T. R., Zipeto, D., Vita, C., Sun, L., Laurent, L., Arenzana-Seisdedos, F., Virelizier, J. L., and Michelson, S. (1998) J. Exp. Med. 188, 855-866[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Kledal, T. N., Rosenkilde, M. M., Coulin, F., Simmons, G., Johnsen, A. H., Alouani, S., Power, C. A., Luttichau, H. R., Gerstoft, J., Clapham, P. R., Clark-Lewis, I., Wells, T. N., and Schwartz, T. W. (1997) Science 277, 1656-1659[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Luttichau, H. R., Stine, J., Boesen, T. P., Johnsen, A. H., Chantry, D., Gerstoft, J., and Schwartz, T. W. (2000) J. Exp. Med. 191, 171-180[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Luttichau, H. R., Lewis, I. C., Gerstoft, J., and Schwartz, T. W. (2001) Eur. J. Immunol. 31, 1217-1220[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Stine, J. T., Wood, C., Hill, M., Epp, A., Raport, C. J., Schweickart, V. L., Endo, Y., Sasaki, T., Simmons, G., Boshoff, C., Clapham, P., Chang, Y., Moore, P., Gray, P. W., and Chantry, D. (2000) Blood 95, 1151-1157[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Endres, M. J., Garlisi, C. G., Xiao, H., Shan, L., and Hedrick, J. A. (1999) J. Exp. Med. 189, 1993-1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Dairaghi, D. J., Fan, R. A., McMaster, B. E., Hanley, M. R., and Schall, T. J. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 21569-21574[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Cha, T. A., Tom, E., Kemble, G. W., Duke, G. M., Mocarski, E. S., and Spaete, R. R. (1996) J. Virol. 70, 78-83[Abstract]
23. Penfold, M. E., Dairaghi, D. J., Duke, G. M., Saederup, N., Mocarski, E. S., Kemble, G. W., and Schall, T. J. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 9839-9844[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Chen, S., Bacon, K. B., Li, L., Garcia, G. E., Xia, Y., Lo, D., Thompson, D. A., Siani, M. A., Yamamoto, T., Harrison, J. K., and Feng, L. (1998) J. Exp. Med. 188, 193-198[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Ghirnikar, R. S., Lee, Y. L., and Eng, L. F. (2001) J. Neurosci. Res. 64, 582-589[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Clark-Lewis, I., Vo, L., Owen, P., and Anderson, J. (1997) Methods Enzymol. 287, 233-250[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. French, C., Menegazzi, P., Nicholson, L., Macaulay, H., DiLuca, D., and Gompels, U. A. (1999) Virology 262, 139-151[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Zou, P., Isegawa, Y., Nakano, K., Haque, M., Horiguchi, Y., and Yamanishi, K. (1999) J. Virol. 73, 5926-5933[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Fife, B. T., Huffnagle, G. B., Kuziel, W. A., and Karpus, W. J. (2000) J. Exp. Med. 192, 899-905[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Izikson, L., Klein, R. S., Charo, I. F., Weiner, H. L., and Luster, A. D. (2000) J. Exp. Med. 192, 1075-1080[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Zhang, Y. J., Rutledge, B. J., and Rollins, B. J. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 15918-15924[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Gong, J. H., and Clark-Lewis, I. (1995) J. Exp. Med. 181, 631-640[Abstract]
33. Hileman, R. E., Fromm, J. R., Weiler, J. M., and Linhardt, R. J. (1998) Bioessays 20, 156-167[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
34. Berkhout, T. A., Sarau, H. M., Moores, K., White, J. R., Elshourbagy, N., Appelbaum, E., Reape, R. J., Brawner, M., Makwana, J., Foley, J. J., Schmidt, D. B., Imburgia, C., McNulty, D., Matthews, J., O'Donnell, K., O'Shannessy, D., Scott, M., Groot, P. H., and Macphee, C. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 16404-16413[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Gong, X., Gong, W., Kuhns, D. B., Ben Baruch, A., Howard, O. M., and Wang, J. M. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 11682-11685[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Yamagami, S., Tanaka, H., and Endo, N. (1997) FEBS Lett. 400, 329-332[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Sozzani, S., Zhou, D., Locati, M., Rieppi, M., Proost, P., Magazin, M., Vita, N., van Damme, J., and Mantovani, A. (1994) J. Immunol. 152, 3615-3622[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Stellato, C., Collins, P., Ponath, P. D., Soler, D., Newman, W., La Rosa, G., Li, H., White, J., Schwiebert, L. M., Bickel, C., Liu, M., Bochner, B. S., Williams, T., and Schleimer, R. P. (1997) J. Clin. Invest. 99, 926-936[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Neote, K., DiGregorio, D., Mak, J. Y., Horuk, R., and Schall, T. J. (1993) Cell 72, 415-425[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
40. Kondo, K., Kondo, T., Okuno, T., Takahashi, M., and Yamanishi, K. (1991) J. Gen. Virol. 72, 1401-1408[Abstract]
41. Albini, A., Ferrini, S., Benelli, R., Sforzini, S., Giunciuglio, D., Aluigi, M. G., Proudfoot, A. E., Alouani, S., Wells, T. N., Mariani, G., Rabin, R. L., Farber, J. M., and Noonan, D. M. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 13153-13158[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Xu, L., Rahimpour, R., Ran, L., Kong, C., Biragyn, A., Andrews, J., Devries, M., Wang, J. M., and Kelvin, D. J. (1997) J. Leukocyte Biol. 62, 653-660[Abstract]
43. Raport, C. J., Schweickart, V. L., Eddy, R. L., Jr., Shows, T. B., and Gray, P. W. (1995) Gene 163, 295-299[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
44. Liu, Y., de Waal, M. R., Briere, F., Parham, C., Bridon, J. M., Banchereau, J., Moore, K. W., and Xu, J. (1997) J. Immunol. 158, 604-613[Abstract]
45. Osborne, J., Moore, P. S., and Chang, Y. (1999) Hum. Immunol. 60, 921-927[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
46. Tzahar, E., Moyer, J. D., Waterman, H., Barbacci, E. G., Bao, J., Levkowitz, G., Shelly, M., Strano, S., Pinkas-Kramarski, R., Pierce, J. H., Andrews, G. C., and Yarden, Y. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 5948-5963[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Compston, A., and Coles, A. (2002) Lancet 359, 1221-1231[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
48. Soldan, S. S., Berti, R., Salem, N., Secchiero, P., Flamand, L., Calabresi, P. A., Brennan, M. B., Maloni, H. W., McFarland, H. F., Lin, H. C., Patnaik, M., and Jacobson, S. (1997) Nat. Med. 3, 1394-1397[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
49. Friedman, J. E., Lyons, M. J., Cu, G., Ablashl, D. V., Whitman, J. E., Edgar, M., Koskiniemi, M., Vaheri, A., and Zabriskie, J. B. (1999) Mult. Scler. 5, 355-362[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
50. Challoner, P. B., Smith, K. T., Parker, J. D., MacLeod, D. L., Coulter, S. N., Rose, T. M., Schultz, E. R., Bennett, J. L., Garber, R. L., Chang, M., Schad, P. A., Stewart, P. M., Nowinski, R. C., Brown, J. P., and Burmes, G. C. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 7440-7444[Abstract]
51. Carrigan, D. R., Harrington, D., and Knox, K. K. (1996) Neurology 47, 145-148[Abstract]
52. Kamei, A., Ichinohe, S., Onuma, R., Hiraga, S., and Fujiwara, T. (1997) Eur. J. Pediatr. 156, 709-712[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
53. Balashov, K. E., Rottman, J. B., Weiner, H. L., and Hancock, W. W. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 6873-6878[Abstract/Free Full Text]
54. Tran, E. H., Kuziel, W. A., and Owens, T. (2000) Eur. J. Immunol. 30, 1410-1415[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]


Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.