Within the family Herpesviridae, sub-family β-herpesvirinae, and genus Roseolovirus, there are only three human herpesviruses that have been described: HHV-6A, HHV-6B, and HHV-7. Initially, HHV-6A and HHV-6B were considered as two variants of the same virus (i.e., HHV6). Despite high overall genetic sequence identity (~90%), HHV-6A and HHV-6B are now recognized as two distinct viruses. Sequence divergence (e.g., >30%) in key coding regions and significant differences in physiological and biochemical profiles (e.g., use of different receptors for viral entry) underscore the conclusion that HHV-6A and HHV-6B are distinct viruses of the β-herpesvirinae. Despite these viruses being implicated as causative agents in several nervous system disorders (e.g., multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and chronic fatigue syndrome), the mechanisms of action and relative contributions of each virus to neurological dysfunction are unclear. Unresolved questions regarding differences in cell tropism, receptor use and binding affinity (i.e., CD46 versus CD134), host neuro-immunological responses, and relative virulence between HHV-6A versus HHV-6B prevent a complete characterization. Although it has been shown that both HHV-6A and HHV-6B can infect glia (and, recently, cerebellar Purkinje cells), cell tropism of HHV-6A versus HHV-6B for different nerve cell types remains vague. In this study, we show that both viruses can infect different nerve cell types (i.e., glia versus neurons) and different neurotransmitter phenotypes derived from differentiated human neural stem cells. As demonstrated by immunofluorescence, HHV-6A and HHV-6B productively infect VGluT1-containing cells (i.e., glutamatergic neurons) and dopamine-containing cells (i.e., dopaminergic neurons). However, neither virus appears to infect GAD67-containing cells (i.e., GABAergic neurons). As determined by qPCR, expression of immunological factors (e.g., cytokines) in cells infected with HHV-6A versus HHV6-B also differs. These data along with morphometric and image analyses of infected differentiated neural stem cell cultures indicate that while HHV-6B may have greater opportunity for transmission, HHV-6A induces more severe cytopathic effects (e.g., syncytia) at the same post-infection end points. Cumulatively, results suggest that HHV-6A is more virulent than HHV-6B in susceptible cells, while neither virus productively infects GABAergic cells. Consistency between these in vitro data and in vivo experiments would provide new insights into potential mechanisms for HHV6-induced epileptogenesis.

Fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1) is a heparin-binding proangiogenic protein. FGF1 lacks the conventional N-terminal signal peptide required for secretion through the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) -Golgi secretory pathway. FGF1 is released through a Cu2+ - mediated nonclassical secretion pathway. The secretion of FGF1 involves the formation of a Cu2+- mediated multiprotein release complex (MRC) including FGF1, S100A13 (a calcium-binding protein) and p40 synaptotagmin (Syt1). It is believed that binding of Cu2+ to the C2B domain is important for the release of FGF1 in to the extracellular medium. In this study, using a variety of biophysical studies, Cu2+ and lipid interactions of the C2B domain of Syt1were characterized. Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) experiments reveal that C2B domain binds to Cu2+ in a biphasic manner involving an initial endothermic and a subsequent exothermic phase. Fluorescence energy transfer experiments using Tb3+ show that there are two Cu2+- binding pockets on the C2B domain, and one of these is also a Ca2+- binding site. Lipid-binding studies using ITC demonstrate that the C2B domain preferentially binds to small unilamellar vesicles of phosphatidyl serine (PS). Results of the differential scanning calorimetry and limited trypsin digestion experiments suggest that C2B domain is marginally destabilized upon binding to PS vesicles. These results, for the first time, suggest that the main role of the C2B domain of Syt1 is to serve as an anchor for the FGF1 MRC on the membrane bilayer. In addition, binding of the C2B domain to the lipid bilayer is shown to significantly decrease the binding affinity of the protein to Cu2+. The study provides valuable insights on the sequence of structural events that occur in the nonclassical secretion of FGF1.

Crenarchaeal group II chaperonins (a.k.a., “heat shock” proteins, HSPs) are abundantly expressed in species of the family Sulfolobaceae. HSPα and HSPβ expression is upregulated during thermal shock. HSPs are subunits of larger octadecameric complexes that function to protect intracellular proteins during thermal stress. Engineered HSPs have been constructed with the idea of protecting enzymes in industrial reactions. HSPβ-coh, a fusion protein comprised of HSPβ and type 1 cohesin from Clostridium thermocellum was used for proof-of-concept. Dockerin-endowed cellulolytic enzymes bind to the complex via cohesin-dockerin interactions. Enzymatic activity (i.e., hydrolysis of lignocellulose) is retained when the platform is used at high temperatures (e.g., 85-88°C). Moreover, enhancement persists on acid-pretreated substrates prompting the question: Are HSPs acid tolerant? In this study, HSP structural integrity is examined at different temperatures and pH. Far-UV circular dichroism and intrinsic fluorescence indicate HSPα and HSPβ retain structural integrity at neutral pH over a range of temperatures (25-90°C) while HSPβ-coh is less tolerant to thermal stress. Structural integrity is compromised for all subunits at ultra-low pH (i.e., pH 2) with HSPα showing the most susceptibility. Secondary structures of all HSPs are resilient under mildly acidic conditions (pH 4). ANS binding assays indicate a shift in tertiary structure for all subunits at ultra-low pH. Limited trypsin digestion reveals that the backbone of HSPβ-coh is the most flexible and HSPβ is the most resistant. Results suggest that HSPα and HSPβ are more resilient than HSPβ-coh under thermal challenge and that there are limits to the acid tolerance of all HSPs.

No abstract

heat-treatment in the presence of cpSRP43. We have proposed a mechanism by which cpSRP43 is able to execute this action however further investigation is warranted to determine the exact mechanism(s) which may vary dependent on the target protein.