Yamashita T, Segawa K, Fujinaga Y, Nishikawa T, Fujinaga K
Department of Molecular Biology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Japan.
Oncogene. 1993 Sep;8(9):2433-41.
In contrast to the observed activity of the E7 genes of the genital high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)16 and HPV18, E7s of the cutaneous high-risk HPV5 and HPV8 show no in vitro transforming activity in established rodent cells. We recently reported that the HPV8 E7 driven by the SV40 enhancer/promoter oncogenically transforms primary rat embryo fibroblast (REF) cells collaboratively with the EJras oncogene (Jpn. J. Cancer Res., 82, 1340-1343, 1991). To study the functional differences between cutaneous HPV5 and HPV8 E7s and genital HPV16 E7, we cloned each of the E7 open reading frames and tested their immortalizing and transforming activities, the binding ability of their products with retinoblastoma protein (RB) and their complementation activity of a RB-nonbinding adenovirus E1A mutant. In contrast to results with HPV16 E7, transfection of HPV5 and HPV8 E7s did not produce any G418-resistant colonies in primary baby rat kidney (BRK) cells. However, they induced morphological transformation of primary BRK cells as well as of primary REF cells when cotransfected with the EJras oncogene. The ras-cooperating activity of HPV8 E7 appears to be extremely low, since, unlike the case of HPV5 and HPV16 E7s, transformed BRK colonies induced by HPV8 E7 plus ras have had a very low survival rate. The in vitro RB binding experiment showed that HPV5 and 8 E7s are able to form complexes with RB protein with reduced affinities of about one fourth and one nineteenth that of HPV16 E7, respectively. Moreover, not only HPV16 E7 but also HPV5 and 8 E7s complemented a nontransforming adenovirus 5 E1A mutant (dl922/947) incapable of binding to RB in inducing E1A-specific transformed foci on primary BRK cells. Since both the activities, the ras-collaborative transformation and complementation of the inert E1A mutant by E7s, all correlate with in vitro RB binding affinity (HPV16 E7 > HPV5 E7 > HPV8 E7), it is likely that RB binding of HPV5 and HPV8 E7s is an integral part of the biological activities of these proteins.
与生殖道高危型人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)16和HPV18的E7基因所观察到的活性相反,皮肤高危型HPV5和HPV8的E7在已建立的啮齿类细胞中未显示出体外转化活性。我们最近报道,由SV40增强子/启动子驱动的HPV8 E7与EJras癌基因协同作用,可使原代大鼠胚胎成纤维细胞(REF)发生致癌转化(《日本癌症研究杂志》,82卷,1340 - 1343页,1991年)。为了研究皮肤型HPV5和HPV8的E7与生殖道HPV16的E7之间的功能差异,我们克隆了每个E7开放阅读框,并测试了它们的永生化和转化活性、其产物与视网膜母细胞瘤蛋白(RB)的结合能力以及它们对一种不与RB结合的腺病毒E1A突变体的互补活性。与HPV16 E7的结果相反,HPV5和HPV8 E7转染原代新生大鼠肾(BRK)细胞后未产生任何对G418耐药的集落。然而,当与EJras癌基因共转染时,它们可诱导原代BRK细胞以及原代REF细胞发生形态转化。HPV8 E7的ras协同活性似乎极低,因为与HPV5和HPV16 E7的情况不同,由HPV8 E7加ras诱导的转化BRK集落存活率非常低。体外RB结合实验表明,HPV5和8 E7能够与RB蛋白形成复合物,其亲和力分别约为HPV16 E7的四分之一和十九分之一,亲和力降低。此外,不仅HPV16 E7,而且HPV5和8 E7都能互补一种不能与RB结合的非转化腺病毒5 EIA突变体(dl922/947),使其在原代BRK细胞上诱导出E1A特异性转化灶。由于ras协同转化和E7对惰性E1A突变体的互补这两种活性都与体外RB结合亲和力相关(HPV16 E7 > HPV5 E7 > HPV8 E7),HPV5和HPV8 E7与RB的结合很可能是这些蛋白生物学活性的一个组成部分。