Hepatitis C virus E2 envelope glycoprotein core structure

Science

Volumn 342, Issue 6162, 2013, Pages 1090-1094

  Kong, Leopold ^a   Giang, Erick ^a   Nieusma, Travis ^a   Kadam, Rameshwar U ^a   Cogburn, Kristin E ^a   Hua, Yuanzi ^a   Dai, Xiaoping ^a   Stanfield, Robyn L ^a   Burton, Dennis R ^a   Ward, Andrew B ^a   Wilson, Ian A ^a   Law, Mansun ^a  

^a SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GLYCOPROTEIN E1; GLYCOPROTEIN E2; GLYCOPROTEIN GP 120; NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODY; VIRUS FUSION PROTEIN; ANTIVIRUS AGENT; CD81 ANTIGEN; CD81 PROTEIN, HUMAN; EPITOPE; GLYCOPROTEIN E2, HEPATITIS C VIRUS; HEPATITIS VACCINE; IMMUNOGLOBULIN F(AB) FRAGMENT; VIRUS ENVELOPE PROTEIN;

ANTIBODY; CANCER; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DISEASE CONTROL; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HEPATITIS; IMMUNE RESPONSE; PATHOGEN; PATHOGENICITY; PROTEIN; VACCINE; VIRUS;

ANTIGEN BINDING; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DISULFIDE BOND; EPITOPE MAPPING; GENOTYPE; GLYCOSYLATION; HEPATITIS C VIRUS; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS 1; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN SECONDARY STRUCTURE; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; RECEPTOR BINDING; SITE DIRECTED MUTAGENESIS; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; GENETICS; HUMAN; IMMUNOLOGY; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

HEPACIVIRUS; HEPATITIS C VIRUS;

ANTIBODIES, NEUTRALIZING; ANTIGENS, CD81; ANTIVIRAL AGENTS; BINDING SITES; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, X-RAY; DRUG DESIGN; EPITOPES; HUMANS; IMMUNOGLOBULIN FAB FRAGMENTS; MUTAGENESIS, SITE-DIRECTED; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; VIRAL ENVELOPE PROTEINS; VIRAL HEPATITIS VACCINES;

EID: 84888778890     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1243876     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Q. L. Choo et al., Science 244, 359-362 (1989).
2. D. Lavanchy, Liver Int. 29 (suppl. 1), 74-81 (2009).
3. K. N. Ly et al., Ann. Intern. Med. 156, 271-278 (2012).
4. C. Kuiken, P. Hraber, J. Thurmond, K. Yusim, Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D512-D516 (2008).
5. M. Houghton, S. Abrignani, Nature 436, 961-966 (2005).
6. E. Billerbeck, Y. de Jong, M. Dorner, C. de la Fuente, A. Ploss, Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 369, 49-86 (2013).
7. C. Kuiken, P. Simmonds, Methods Mol. Biol. 510, 33-53 (2009).
8. M. Law et al., Nat. Med. 14, 25-27 (2008).
9. T. J. Broering et al., J. Virol. 83, 12473-12482 (2009).
10. Z. Y. Keck et al., PLOS Pathog. 8, e1002653 (2012).
11. J. P. Michalak et al., J. Gen. Virol. 78, 2299-2306 (1997).
12. T. Krey et al., PLOS Pathog. 6, e1000762 (2010).
13. J. Whidby et al., J. Virol. 83, 11078-11089 (2009).
14. A. T. Yagnik et al., Proteins 40, 355-366 (2000).
15. Materials and methods and supplementary text are available as supplementary materials on Science Online.
16. Complex A has better defined electron density and lower B values, likely from additional crystal contacts between the tips of glycan N430 and a neighboring symmetry mate (fig. S2); the same glycan in complex B is mostly disordered. The N430 interaction may explain why enzymatic deglycosylation, which typically aids crystallization, does not produce crystals.
17. D. M. Halaby, A. Poupon, J. Mornon, Protein Eng. 12, 563-571 (1999).
18. One difference from the standard C2-set connectivity is the absence of strand a from the outer sheet of the E2 β sandwich, which could be due to disorder or to truncation of E2 VR2 in the construct. A more important difference is the absence of a canonical disulfide connecting outer and inner sheets at strands b and f that is present in most Ig folds, although observed together with C2-set strand connectivity in some bacterial, actinoxanthine-like, and fibronectin III-like domains comprising the C3, C4, and FN3 sets. However, the E2 β sandwich has disulfides linking the loop before strand b with strand g (residues 494 to 564) and strand c with strand f (508 to 552), which are typically observed in the C2 set but not for the C3, C4, or Fn3 sets. This unique disulfide system found in the E2 β sandwich may have constrained the rotational angle between inner and outer sheet strands to be nearly parallel, rather than the -30° offset commonly observed in Ig folds. Together, these features suggest the E2 β sandwich is similar to the C2 set but with differences such as lack of strand a, lack of disulfide connection between strands b and f, and lack of -30° offset between front and back sheets that prevent finding significant matches with equivalent strand connectivity to other structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) using structural homology programs DALI and FATCAT (15).
19. A. M. Owsianka et al., J. Virol. 80, 8695-8704 (2006).
20. F. A. Rey, F. X. Heinz, C. Mandl, C. Kunz, S. C. Harrison, Nature 375, 291-298 (1995).
21. G. E. Nybakken et al., Nature 437, 764-769 (2005).
22. R. M. DuBois et al., Nature 493, 552-556 (2013).
23. J. E. Voss et al., Nature 468, 709-712 (2010).
24. L. Li, J. Jose, Y. Xiang, R. J. Kuhn, M. G. Rossmann, Nature 468, 705-708 (2010).
25. K. El Omari, O. Iourin, K. Harlos, J. M. Grimes, D. I. Stuart, Cell Rep. 3, 30-35 (2013).
26. Y. Li, J. Wang, R. Kanai, Y. Modis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 6805-6810 (2013).
27. M. C. Vaney, F. A. Rey, Cell. Microbiol. 13, 1451-1459 (2011).
28. 2 because of the kifunensine treatment during protein production.
29. J. C. Almagro et al., J. Mol. Recognit. 25, 125-135 (2012).
30. This calculation was made from searching the International Immunogenetics Information System (IMGT) database on 27 March 2013. There were n = 8832 IGHD germline genes in the database, of which 1514 contained the disulfide motif.
31. D. C. Ekiert et al., Science 324, 246-251 (2009); 10.1126/science. 1171491.
32. T. Zhou et al., Nature 445, 732-737 (2007).
33. D. Lingwood et al., Nature 489, 566-570 (2012).
34. H. E. Drummer, K. A. Wilson, P. Poumbourios, J. Virol. 76, 11143-11147 (2002).
35. K. Kitadokoro et al., EMBO J. 20, 12-18 (2001).
36. K. Kitadokoro et al., Biol. Chem. 383, 1447-1452 (2002).
37. At this resolution, we have approximated the known CD81 dimer structure into the EM reconstruction, but some differences are apparent that will need higher-resolution structure information to discern subtle differences in free and bound conformations of CD81.
38. L. Kong et al., J. Virol. 86, 13085-13088 (2012).
39. L. Kong et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 9499-9504 (2012).
40. HVR1 has been defined as the most variable region of the HCV genome. However, relative to the entire genome, VR2 and VR3 are not considered hypervariable. Here, we define these regions as variable with respect to E1 and E2 proteins only and not with respect to the rest of the HCV genome.
41. D. Bankwitz et al., J. Virol. 84, 5751-5763 (2010).
42. A. Kapoor et al., mBio 4, e00216-13 (2013).