Institute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Lancet Microbe. 2021 May;2(5):e210-e218. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00027-6. Epub 2021 Mar 4.
The COVID-19 agent, SARS-CoV-2, is conspecific with SARS-CoV, the causal agent of the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2002-03. Although the viruses share a completely homologous repertoire of proteins and use the same cellular entry receptor, their transmission efficiencies and pathogenetic traits differ. We aimed to compare interferon antagonism by SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.
For this functional study, we infected Vero E6 and Calu-3 cells with strains of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We studied differences in cell line-specific replication (Vero E6 Calu-3 cells) and analysed these differences in relation to TMPRSS2-dependent cell entry based on inhibition with the drug camostat mesilate. We evaluated viral sensitivity towards type I interferon treatment and assessed cytokine induction and type I interferon signalling in the host cells by RT-PCR and analysis of transcription factor activation and nuclear translocation. Based on reverse genetic engineering of SARS-CoV, we investigated the contribution of open reading frame 6 (ORF6) to the observed phenotypic differences in interferon signalling, because ORF6 encodes an interferon signalling antagonist. We did a luciferase-based interferon-stimulated response element promotor activation assay to evaluate the antagonistic capacity of SARS-CoV-2 wild-type ORF6 constructs and three mutants (Gln51Glu, Gln56Glu, or both) that represent amino acid substitutions between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 protein 6 in the carboxy-terminal domain.
Overall, replication was higher for SARS-CoV in Vero E6 cells and for SARS-CoV-2 in Calu-3 cells. SARS-CoV-2 was reliant on TMPRSS2, found only in Calu-3 cells, for more efficient entry. SARS-CoV-2 was more sensitive to interferon treatment, less efficient in suppressing cytokine induction via IRF3 nuclear translocation, and permissive of a higher level of induction of interferon-stimulated genes and . SARS-CoV-2 ORF6 expressed in the context of a fully replicating SARS-CoV backbone suppressed gene induction, but this suppression was less efficient than that by SARS-CoV ORF6. Mutagenesis showed that charged amino acids in residues 51 and 56 shift the phenotype towards more efficient interferon antagonism, as seen in SARS-CoV.
SARS-CoV-2 ORF6 interferes less efficiently with human interferon induction and interferon signalling than SARS-CoV ORF6. Because of the homology of the genes, onward selection for fitness could involve functional optimisation of interferon antagonism. Charged amino acids at positions 51 and 56 in ORF6 should be monitored for potential adaptive changes.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, EU RECOVER project.
COVID-19 病原体 SARS-CoV-2 与 2002-03 年严重急性呼吸综合征疫情的病原体 SARS-CoV 同源。尽管这两种病毒具有完全同源的蛋白质谱,并使用相同的细胞进入受体,但它们的传播效率和发病特征不同。我们旨在比较 SARS-CoV 和 SARS-CoV-2 的干扰素拮抗作用。
在这项功能研究中,我们用 SARS-CoV 和 SARS-CoV-2 株感染 Vero E6 和 Calu-3 细胞。我们研究了细胞系特异性复制(Vero E6 & Calu-3 细胞)的差异,并根据药物 camostat mesilate 的抑制作用,基于 TMPRSS2 依赖性细胞进入对这些差异进行了分析。我们评估了病毒对 I 型干扰素治疗的敏感性,并通过 RT-PCR 分析和转录因子激活及核易位分析,评估宿主细胞中的细胞因子诱导和 I 型干扰素信号。基于 SARS-CoV 的反向遗传工程,我们研究了开放阅读框 6(ORF6)对干扰素信号观察到的表型差异的贡献,因为 ORF6 编码一种干扰素信号拮抗剂。我们进行了基于荧光素酶的干扰素刺激反应元件启动子激活测定,以评估 SARS-CoV-2 野生型 ORF6 构建体和三个突变体(Gln51Glu、Gln56Glu 或两者)的拮抗能力,这三个突变体代表 SARS-CoV 和 SARS-CoV-2 蛋白 6 羧基末端结构域中的氨基酸取代。
总体而言,SARS-CoV 在 Vero E6 细胞中的复制率更高,SARS-CoV-2 在 Calu-3 细胞中的复制率更高。SARS-CoV-2 依赖于仅在 Calu-3 细胞中发现的 TMPRSS2 以实现更有效的进入。SARS-CoV-2 对干扰素治疗更敏感,通过 IRF3 核易位抑制细胞因子诱导的效率较低,并且诱导干扰素刺激基因和的水平更高。在完全复制的 SARS-CoV 骨架中表达的 SARS-CoV-2 ORF6 抑制基因诱导,但这种抑制作用不如 SARS-CoV ORF6 有效。突变显示,残基 51 和 56 中的带电氨基酸会使表型向更有效的干扰素拮抗作用转变,这与 SARS-CoV 相似。
SARS-CoV-2 ORF6 对人干扰素诱导和干扰素信号的干扰作用不如 SARS-CoV ORF6 有效。由于基因的同源性,适应性选择可能涉及干扰素拮抗作用的功能优化。ORF6 中位置 51 和 56 的带电氨基酸应监测潜在的适应性变化。
德国联邦教育与研究部、欧盟复苏项目。