1 October 2009

Ganglioside GT1b Is a Putative Host Cell Receptor for the Merkel Cell Polyomavirus

ABSTRACT

The Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) was identified recently in human Merkel cell carcinomas, an aggressive neuroendocrine skin cancer. Here, we identify a putative host cell receptor for MCPyV. We found that recombinant MCPyV VP1 pentameric capsomeres both hemagglutinated sheep red blood cells and interacted with ganglioside GT1b in a sucrose gradient flotation assay. Structural differences between the analyzed gangliosides suggest that MCPyV VP1 likely interacts with sialic acids on both branches of the GT1b carbohydrate chain. Identification of a potential host cell receptor for MCPyV will aid in the elucidation of its entry mechanism and pathophysiology.
Members of the polyomavirus (PyV) family, including simian virus 40 (SV40), murine PyV (mPyV), and BK virus (BKV), bind cell surface gangliosides to initiate infection (2, 8, 11, 15). PyV capsids are assembled from 72 pentamers (capsomeres) of the major coat protein VP1, with the internal proteins VP2 and VP3 buried within the capsids (7, 12). The VP1 pentamer makes direct contact with the carbohydrate portion of the ganglioside (10, 12, 13) and dictates the specificity of virus interaction with the cell. Gangliosides are glycolipids that contain a ceramide domain inserted into the plasma membrane and a carbohydrate domain that directly binds the virus. Specifically, SV40 binds to ganglioside GM1 (2, 10, 15), mPyV binds to gangliosides GD1a and GT1b (11, 15), and BKV binds to gangliosides GD1b and GT1b (8).
Recently, a new human PyV designated Merkel cell PyV (MCPyV) was identified in Merkel cell carcinomas, a rare but aggressive skin cancer of neuroendocrine origin (3). It is as yet unclear whether MCPyV is the causative agent of Merkel cell carcinomas (17). A key to understanding the infectious and transforming properties of MCPyV is the elucidation of its cellular entry pathway. In this study, we identify a putative host cell receptor for MCPyV.
Because an intact infectious MCPyV has not yet been isolated, we generated recombinant MCPyV VP1 pentamers in order to characterize cellular factors that bind to MCPyV. VP1 capsomeres have been previously shown to be equivalent to virus with respect to hemagglutination properties (4, 16), and the atomic structure of VP1 bound to sialyllactose has demonstrated that the capsomere is sufficient for this interaction (12, 13). The MCPyV VP1 protein (strain w162) was expressed and purified as described previously (1, 6). Briefly, a glutathione S-transferase-MCPyV VP1 fusion protein was expressed in Escherichia coli and purified using glutathione-Sepharose affinity chromatography. The fusion protein was eluted using glutathione and cleaved in solution with thrombin. The thrombin-cleaved sample was then rechromatographed on a second glutathione-Sepharose column to remove glutathione transferase and any uncleaved protein. The unbound VP1 was then chromatographed on a P-11 phosphocellulose column, and peak fractions eluting between 400 and 450 mM NaCl were collected. The purified protein was analyzed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), followed by Coomassie blue staining (Fig. 1A, left) and immunoblotting using an antibody (I58) that generally recognizes PyV VP1 proteins (Fig. 1A, right) (9). Transmission electron microscopy (Philips CM10) analysis confirmed that the purified recombinant MCPyV VP1 formed pentamers (capsomeres), which did not assemble further into virus-like particles (Fig. 1B). In an initial screening of its cell binding properties, we tested whether the MCPyV VP1 pentamers hemagglutinated red blood cells (RBCs). The MCPyV VP1 pentamers were incubated with sheep RBCs and assayed as previously described (5). SV40 and mPyV recombinant VP1 pentamers served as negative and positive controls, respectively. We found that MCPyV VP1 hemagglutinated the RBCs with the same efficiency as mPyV VP1 (protein concentration/hemagglutination unit) (Fig. 1C, compare rows B and C from wells 1 to 11), suggesting that MCPyV VP1 engages a plasma membrane receptor on the RBCs. The recombinant murine VP1 protein used for comparison was from the RA strain, a small plaque virus (4). Thus, MCPyV VP1 has the hemagglutination characteristics of a small plaque mPyV (12, 13).
To characterize the chemical nature of the putative receptor for MCPyV, total membranes from RBCs were purified as described previously (15). The plasma membranes (30 μg) were incubated with MCPyV VP1 (0.5 μg) and floated on a discontinuous sucrose gradient (15). After fractionation, the samples were analyzed by SDS-PAGE, followed by immunoblotting with I58. VP1 was found in the bottom of the gradient in the absence of the plasma membranes (Fig. 2A, first panel). In the presence of plasma membranes, a fraction of the VP1 floated to the middle of the gradient (Fig. 2A, second panel), supporting the hemagglutination results that suggested that MCPyV VP1 binds to a receptor on the plasma membrane.
To determine whether the receptor is a protein or a lipid, plasma membrane preparations (30 μg) were incubated with proteinase K (Sigma), followed by analysis with SDS-PAGE and Coomassie blue staining. Under these conditions, the majority of the proteins in the plasma membranes were degraded by the protease (Fig. 2B, compare lanes 1 and 2). Despite the lack of proteins, the proteinase K-treated plasma membranes bound MCPyV VP1 as efficiently as control plasma membranes (Fig. 2A, compare the second and third panels), demonstrating that MCPyV VP1 interacts with a protease-resistant receptor. The absence of VP1 in the bottom fraction in Fig. 2A (third panel) is consistent with the fact that the buoyant density of the membranes is lowered by proteolysis. Of note, a similar result was seen with binding of the mPyV to the plasma membrane (15). Binding of MCPyV to the cell surface of two human tissue culture cells (i.e., HeLa and 293T) was also largely unaffected by pretreatment of the cells with proteinase K (Fig. 2C and D, compare lanes 1 and 2), further indicating that a nonproteinaceous molecule on the plasma membrane engages the virus.
We next determined whether the protease-resistant receptor contains a sialic acid modification. Plasma membranes (10 μg) were incubated with a neuraminidase (α2-3,6,8 neuraminidase; Calbiochem) to remove the sialic acid groups. In contrast to the control plasma membranes, the neuraminidase-treated membranes did not bind MCPyV VP1 (Fig. 2E, compare first and second panels), indicating that the MCPyV receptor includes a sialic acid modification.
Gangliosides are lipids that contain sialic acid modifications. We asked if MCPyV VP1 binds to gangliosides similar to other PyV family members. The structures of the gangliosides used in this analysis (gangliosides GM1, GD1a, GD1b, and GT1b) are depicted in Fig. 3A. To assess a possible ganglioside-VP1 interaction, we employed a liposome flotation assay established previously (15). When liposomes (consisting of phosphatidyl-choline [19 μl of 10 mg/ml], -ethanolamine [5 μl of 10 mg/ml], -serine [1 μl of 10 mg/ml], and -inositol [3 μl of 10 mg/ml]) were incubated with MCPyV VP1 and subjected to the sucrose flotation assay, the VP1 remained in the bottom fraction (Fig. 3B, first panel), indicating that VP1 does not interact with these phospholipids. However, when liposomes containing GT1b (1 μl of 1 mM), but not GM1 (1 μl of 1 mM) or GD1a (1 μl of 1 mM), were incubated with MCPyV VP1, the vesicles bound this VP1 (Fig. 3B). A low level of virus floated partially when incubated with liposomes containing GD1b (Fig. 3B), perhaps reflecting a weak affinity between MCPyV and GD1b. Importantly, MCPyV binds less efficiently to neuraminidase-treated GT1b-containing liposomes than to GT1b-containing liposomes (Fig. 3B, sixth panel), suggesting that the GT1b sialic acids are involved in virus binding. This finding is consistent with the ability of neuraminidase to block MCPyV binding to the plasma membrane (Fig. 2E). The level of virus flotation observed in the neuraminidase-treated GT1b-containing liposomes is likely due to the inefficiency of the neuraminidase reaction with a high concentration of GT1b used to prepare the vesicles.
As controls, GM1-containing liposomes bound SV40 (Fig. 3C), GD1a-containing liposomes bound mPyV (Fig. 3D), and GD1b-containing liposomes bound BKV (Fig. 3E), demonstrating that the liposomes were functionally intact. We note that, while all of the MCPyV VP1 floated when incubated with liposomes containing GT1b (Fig. 3B, sixth panel), a significant fraction of SV40, mPyV, and BKV VP1 remained in the bottom fraction despite being incubated with liposomes containing their respective ganglioside receptors (Fig. 3C to E, second panels). This result is likely due to the fact that in contrast to MCPyV, which are assembled as pentamers (Fig. 1B), the SV40, mPyV, and BKV used in these experiments are fully assembled particles: their larger and denser nature prevents efficient flotation. Nonetheless, we conclude that MCPyV VP1 binds to ganglioside GT1b efficiently.
The observation that GD1a does not bind to MCPyV VP1 suggests that the monosialic acid modification on the right branch of GT1b (Fig. 3A) is insufficient for binding. Similarly, the failure of GD1b to bind MCPyV VP1 suggests that the sialic acid on the left arm of GT1b is necessary for binding. Together, these observations suggest that MCPyV VP1 interacts with sialic acids on both branches of GT1b (Fig. 4). A recent structure of SV40 VP1 in complex with the sugar portion of GM1 (10) demonstrated that although SV40 VP1 binds both branches of GM1 (Fig. 4), only a single sialic acid in GM1 is involved in this interaction. In the case of mPyV, structures of mPyV VP1 in complex with different carbohydrates (12, 13) revealed that the sialic acid-galactose moiety on the left branch of GD1a (and GT1b) is sufficient for mPyV VP1 binding (Fig. 4). Although no structure of BKV in complex with the sugar portion of GD1b (or GT1b) is available, in vitro binding studies (8) have suggested that the disialic acid modification on the right branch of GD1b (and GT1b) is responsible for binding BKV VP1 (Fig. 4). Thus, it appears that the unique feature of the MCPyV VP1-GT1b interaction is that the sialic acids on both branches of this ganglioside are likely involved in capsid binding.
The identification of a potential cellular receptor for MCPyV will facilitate the study of its entry mechanism. An important issue for further study is to determine whether MCPyV targets Merkel cells preferentially, and if so, whether GT1b is found in higher levels in these cells to increase susceptibility.
FIG. 1.
FIG. 1. Characterization of MCPyV VP1. Recombinant MCPyV VP1 forms pentamers and hemagglutinates sheep RBCs. (A) Coomassie blue-stained SDS-PAGE and an immunoblot of the purified recombinant MCPyV VP1 protein are shown. Molecular mass markers are indicated. (B) Electron micrograph of the purified MCPyV VP1. MCPyV VP1 (shown in panel A) was diluted to 100 μg/ml and absorbed onto Formvar/carbon-coated copper grids. Samples were washed with phosphate-buffered saline, stained with 1% uranyl acetate, and visualized by transmission electron microscopy at 80 kV. Bar = 20 nm. (C) Sheep RBCs (0.5%) were incubated with decreasing concentrations of purified recombinant SV40 VP1 (row A), mPyV VP1 (row B), and MCPyV VP1 (row C). Wells 1 to 11 contain twofold serial dilutions of protein, starting at 2 μg/ml (well 1). Well 12 contains buffer only and serves as a negative control. Well 7 (rows B and C) corresponds to 128 hemagglutination units per 2 μg/ml VP1 protein.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2. MCPyV VP1 binds to a protease-resistant, sialic acid-containing receptor on the plasma membrane. (A) Purified recombinant MCPyV VP1 was incubated with or without the indicated plasma membranes. The samples were floated in a discontinuous sucrose gradient, and the fractions were collected from the top of the gradient, subjected to SDS-PAGE, and immunoblotted with the anti-VP1 antibody I58. (B) Control and proteinase K-treated plasma membranes were subjected to SDS-PAGE, followed by Coomassie blue staining. (C) HeLa cells treated with proteinase K (4 μg/ml) were incubated with MCPyV at 4°C, and the resulting cell lysate was probed for the presence of MCPyV VP1. (D) As described in the legend to panel C, except 293T cells were used. (E) Purified MCPyV VP1 was incubated with plasma membranes pretreated with or without α2-3,6,8 neuraminidase and analyzed as described in the legend to panel A.
FIG. 3.
FIG. 3. MCPyV VP1 binds to ganglioside GT1b. (A) Structures of gangliosides GM1, GD1a, GD1b, and GT1b. The nature of the glycosidic linkages is indicated. (B) Purified MCPyV VP1 protein was incubated with liposomes only or with liposomes containing the indicated gangliosides. The samples were analyzed as described in the legend to Fig. 2A. Where indicated, GT1b-containing liposomes were pretreated with α2-3,6,8 neuraminidase and analyzed subsequently for virus binding. (C to E) The indicated viruses were incubated with liposomes and analyzed as described in the legend to panel B.
FIG. 4.
FIG. 4. A potential model of the different VP1-ganglioside interactions (see the text for discussion).

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge support from NIH grants AI064296 (to B.T.) and CA37667 (to R.L.G.).

REFERENCES

1.
Bird, G., M. O'Donnell, J. Moroianu, and R. L. Garcea. 2008. Possible role for cellular karyopherins in regulating polyomavirus and papillomavirus capsid assembly. J. Virol.82:9848-9857.
2.
Campanero-Rhodes, M. A., A. Smith, W. Chai, S. Sonnino, L. Mauri, R. A. Childs, Y. Zhang, H. Ewers, A. Helenius, A. Imberty, and T. Feizi. 2007. N-glycolyl GM1 ganglioside as a receptor for simian virus 40. J. Virol.81:12846-12858.
3.
Feng, H., M. Shuda, Y. Chang, and P. S. Moore. 2008. Clonal integration of a polyomavirus in human Merkel cell carcinoma. Science319:1096-1100.
4.
Freund, R., R. L. Garcea, R. Sahli, and T. L. Benjamin. 1991. A single amino acid substitution in polyomavirus VP1 correlates with plaque size and hemagglutination behavior. J. Virol.65:350-355.
5.
Garcea, R. L., and T. L. Benjamin. 1983. Isolation and characterization of polyoma nucleoprotein complexes. Virology130:65-75.
6.
Kean, J. M., S. Rao, M. Wang, and R. L. Garcea. 2009. Seroepidemiology of human polyomaviruses. PLoS Pathog.5(3):e1000363.
7.
Liddington, R. C., Y. Yan, J. Moulai, R. Sahli, T. L. Benjamin, and S. C. Harrison. 1991. Structure of simian virus 40 at 3.8-A resolution. Nature354:278-284.
8.
Low, J. A., B. Magnuson, B. Tsai, and M. J. Imperiale. 2006. Identification of gangliosides GD1b and GT1b as receptors for BK virus. J. Virol.80:1361-1366.
9.
Montross, L., S. Watkins, R. B. Moreland, H. Mamon, D. L. D. Caspar, and R. L. Garcea. 1991. Nuclear assembly of polyomavirus capsids in insect cells expressing the major capsid protein VP1. J. Virol.65:4991-4998.
10.
Neu, U., K. Woellner, G. Gauglitz, and T. Stehle. 2008. Structural basis of GM1 ganglioside recognition by simian virus 40. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA105:5219-5224.
11.
Smith, A. E., H. Lilie, and A. Helenius. 2003. Ganglioside-dependent cell attachment and endocytosis of murine polyomavirus-like particles. FEBS Lett.555:199-203.
12.
Stehle, T., Y. Yan, T. L. Benjamin, and S. C. Harrison. 1994. Structure of murine polyomavirus complexed with an oligosaccharide receptor fragment. Nature369:160-163.
13.
Stehle, T., and S. C. Harrison. 1996. Crystal structures of murine polyomavirus in complex with straight-chain and branched-chain sialyloligosaccharide receptor fragments. Structure4:183-194.
14.
Reference deleted.
15.
Tsai, B., J. M. Gilbert, T. Stehle, W. Lencer, T. L. Benjamin, and T. A. Rapoport. 2003. Gangliosides are receptors for murine polyoma virus and SV40. EMBO J.22:4346-4355.
16.
Zullo, J. N., C. D. Stiles, and R. L. Garcea. 1987. Induction of c-myc and c-fos by polyomavirus: distinct roles for the capsid protein VP1 and the viral early proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.84:1210-1214.
17.
zur Hausen, H. 2008. Novel human polyomaviruses—re-emergence of a well known virus family as possible human carcinogens. Int. J. Cancer123:247-250.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Virology
Journal of Virology
Volume 83Number 191 October 2009
Pages: 10275 - 10279
PubMed: 19605473

History

Received: 13 May 2009
Accepted: 9 July 2009
Published online: 1 October 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Contributors

Authors

Kimberly D. Erickson
Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder, 347 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309
Robert L. Garcea [email protected]
Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder, 347 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309
Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan Medical School, 109 Zina Pitcher Place, Room 3043, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note:

  • For recently published articles, the TOTAL download count will appear as zero until a new month starts.
  • There is a 3- to 4-day delay in article usage, so article usage will not appear immediately after publication.
  • Citation counts come from the Crossref Cited by service.

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Figures and Media

Figures

Media

Tables

Share

Share

Share the article link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share on social media

American Society for Microbiology ("ASM") is committed to maintaining your confidence and trust with respect to the information we collect from you on websites owned and operated by ASM ("ASM Web Sites") and other sources. This Privacy Policy sets forth the information we collect about you, how we use this information and the choices you have about how we use such information.
FIND OUT MORE about the privacy policy