

* Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; and
Department of Animal Biology, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, Philadelphia
Correspondence: Ronald Collman, 807 Abramson Bldg., 34th & Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104-4399. E-mail: collmanr{at}mail.med.upenn.edu
|
|
|---|
and macrophage inflammatory protein-1ß, respectively. The prototype
T-tropic X4 strain IIIB infected macrophages poorly, and this was
associated with failure of the IIIB Env to fuse efficiently with target
macrophages despite functional CXCR4. In contrast, several primary X4
isolates mediated efficient CXCR4-dependent fusion and productive
macrophage infection. Several R5X4 strains could fuse with and infect
macrophages through both CCR5 and CXCR4. Thus, macrophages express
functional CXCR4 and CCR5 but primary and prototype X4 isolates differ
in their ability to utilize macrophage CXCR4. Isolates classified as X4
based on coreceptor use may be phenotypically either T-tropic or
dual-tropic and, conversely, phenotypically dual-tropic isolates may be
either R5X4 or X4 based on coreceptor use.
Key Words: gp120 gp160 envelope chemokine receptor ion channel calcium
|
|
|---|
HIV-1 tropism is determined initially by fusion and entry, mediated by the viral envelope glycoprotein (Env) and the cellular coreceptors comprised of CD4 plus a chemokine receptor [1 ]. Prototype M-tropic strains use the chemokine receptor CCR5 for entry, prototype T-tropic strains use CXCR4, and dual-tropic strains use either coreceptor. This pattern of coreceptor usage initially suggested that the cellular determinants of tropism would be linked to the selective expression on macrophages of CCR5 but not CXCR4, CXCR4 but not CCR5 on T cell lines, and both on lymphocytes. In fact, we and others have shown that macrophages do express CXCR4 and that some strains can use macrophage CXCR4 for infection [3 4 5 6 ].
In this study we sought to better understand CXCR4 function on macrophages and the relationship between coreceptor usage and macrophage tropism. Because the normal function of chemokine receptors is to transduce intracellular signals in response to chemokines, we examined the response in macrophages to CXCR4 stimulation, and compared the signals activated through CXCR4 with those activated through CCR5. Because membrane fusion is a critical initial step in virus entry and a major determinant of tropism, we examined the function of CXCR4 and CCR5 in Env-mediated fusion through the use of a primary macrophage-based fusion assay. Finally, we tested the coreceptors used on macrophages for productive infection. These studies show that CXCR4 in macrophages is functional for chemokine signaling, and supports Env-mediated fusion and infection by some primary but not prototype HIV-1 isolates.
|
|
|---|
32 allele as identified by polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) [8
]. To define the role of macrophage
CXCR4, cells were treated with the specific antagonist AMD3100
[9
] for 1 h before fusion (10 µg/mL) or infection
(1 µg/mL) experiments, or immediately before agonist application (1
µg/mL).
Signaling studies
To measure current responses to chemokine stimulation, MDM on
coverslips were placed into a temperature-controlled recording chamber
on the stage of an inverted fluorescence microscope, and voltage clamp
experiments were performed using standard whole-cell recording
techniques as previously described [10
,
11
]. Bath solution contained 140 mM NaCl, 4.5 mM KCl, 2
mM CaCl2, 1 mM MgCl2, 10 mM glucose, and 10 mM
HEPES (pH 7.4), and the pipette solution contained 145 mM KCl, 0.5 mM
EGTA, 0.5 mM MgCl2, and 5 mM HEPES (pH 7.4). The chemokines
macrophage inflammatory protein-1ß (MIP-1ß) and stromal
cell-derived factor-1
(SDF-1
; 1 µg/mL; Peprotech, Rocky Hill,
NJ) were applied directly onto cells through the use of a
pressure-controlled micropipette. The ionic nature of elicited currents
were characterized using instantaneous current reversal potentials at
the point of maximal current activation (300-ms ramp depolarizations
applied from -100 to 75 mV) and ion-substituted solutions as
previously described [10
, 11
], and the
pharmacological inhibitors NPPB (Calbiochem, San Diego, CA) and
charybdotoxin (Alomone Laboratories, Jerusalem, Israel).
Primary macrophage fusion studies
Effector 293T cells were infected with recombinant vaccinia
viruses expressing the IIIB, 89.6 and DH12 env genes
[12
, 13
], transfected with a plasmid
encoding luciferase under control of the T7 promoter, and incubated
overnight at 32°C in medium containing rifampicin (100 µg/mL).
Target MDM were infected with T7 polymerase-expressing recombinant
vaccinia virus vTF7.3 and incubated at 32°C overnight in medium
supplemented with rifampicin. Env-expressing effector cells and
macrophages were then mixed in the presence of both rifampicin and
Ara-C (0.1 µM). Cell-cell fusion was quantified by measuring
luciferase activity in cell lysates 6 h later. For strains UG021,
UG024, and JRFL, effector 293T cells were infected with the T7
polymerase-expressing recombinant vaccinia virus vP11T7gene1,
co-transfected with plasmids encoding env under control of
the T7 promoter [14
] and luciferase under control of the
SP6 promoter, and incubated at 32°C overnight. Target MDM were
infected with recombinant vaccinia virus vSIMBE/L, which
expresses the SP6 RNA polymerase, and incubated at 32°C overnight in
medium with rifampicin. Env-expressing effector cells were then mixed
with target macrophages in the presence of rifampicin and Ara-C, and
luciferase activity measured 6 h later. Details of the recombinant
vaccinia viruses, plasmids, and macrophage fusion assays have been
described previously [6
, 12
13
14
15
].
Infections
MDM were infected overnight using 20 ng of p24 antigen of each
virus, washed, and p24 antigen levels in supernatant were measured
periodically. HIV-1 isolates tested included the T-tropic X4 prototype
IIIB, M-tropic R5 prototype JRFL, R5X4 strains DH12 and 89.6
[12
, 13
], and X4 primary isolates UG021 and
UG024 ([14
], obtained from the NIH AIDS Reagent
Program).
|
|
|---|
, the chemokine ligand for CXCR4, as well as MIP-1ß, the most
specific of several chemokines that signal through CCR5.
Both SDF-1
and MIP-1ß activated a transient outward current in
macrophages, followed by a more slowly developing and sustained inward
current (Fig. 1A
). The initial outward current was elicited by MIP-1ß in all
macrophages, whereas SDF-1
evoked the current in about half. In
contrast, the subsequent inward current was activated somewhat more
frequently by SDF-1
than by MIP-1ß (70 vs. 40% of cells). To
confirm that current activation was specifically mediated by CXCR4 and
CCR5, we used macrophages lacking surface CCR5 derived from donors
homozygous for the CCR5
32 deletion allele, and a specific inhibitor
of CXCR4, AMD3100. As shown in Figure 1B
, macrophages lacking CCR5
failed to signal after MIP-1ß stimulation but responded normally to
SDF-1
, with activation of inward, or inward and outward, currents.
On the other hand, blocking CXCR4 prevented current activation by
SDF-1
but had no effect on the response to MIP-1ß (Fig. 1C)
. Thus,
both CXCR4 and CCR5 are functionally active in MDM and mediate
chemokine-induced signaling.
![]() View larger version (13K): [in a new window] |
Figure 1. Chemokine signaling through CCR5 and CXCR4 on primary macrophages.
Currents were recorded in MDM stimulated with MIP-1ß (left) and
SDF-1 (right). The arrows indicate the time of agonist application.
(A) Wild-type MDM were stimulated without any blocking agent present.
(B) The role of CCR5 was tested using CCR5-deficient macrophages,
obtained from donors homozygous for the CCR5 32 allele. (C)
Signaling mediated by CXCR4 was tested by adding the CXCR4 antagonist
AMD3100 to wild-type MDM immediately before chemokine application.
|
and MIP-1ß reversed direction at approximately -75 mV, which is
characteristic of a potassium current. This current was also blocked by
charybdotoxin (100 nM), a peptidyl blocker of K+ channels.
In contrast, the slower-developing inward current evoked in macrophages
by SDF-1
and MIP-1ß reversed direction at approximately 0 mV,
which, under the conditions of these measurements, is consistent with a
chloride current. The identity of the inward current was confirmed by
replacing Cl- in the extracellular bath with the
impermeant anion gluconate, which shifted this reversal potential
toward the predicted Cl- reversal potential
(ER = 45 mV). The inward current was also
blocked by the Cl- channel inhibitor NPPB (10 µM).
Therefore, both K+ and Cl- channels are
activated by CXCR4 and CCR5 in macrophages upon stimulation by SDF-1
and MIP-1ß, respectively. Although modest quantitative differences in
the frequency of current activation were seen, the overall patterns of
ion channel activation were similar for CXCR4 and CCR5. We also found
that both SDF-1
and MIP-1ß elevated intracellular calcium levels
in macrophages, as measured using calcium indicator Fura-2/AM
[10
, 11
] (data not shown). |
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 1. Currents Activated by Chemokines in Monocyte-Derived Macrophages
|
As shown in Figure 2 , Env from the prototype X4 T-tropic strain IIIB failed to fuse with primary macrophages, indicating that it is restricted in macrophages at the level of entry. In contrast, efficient fusion was seen with the R5 prototype JRFL. JRFL fusion was not affected by blocking CXCR4 but was eliminated if CCR5 was absent (Fig. 2B) , confirming that CCR5 served as its exclusive fusion pathway in macrophages. Two dual-tropic R5X4 strains, 89.6 and DH12, fused with macrophages as long as either CXCR4 or CCR5 was available, and fusion was prevented only if both pathways were blocked, as in CCR5-negative macrophages treated with a CXCR4 antagonist (Fig. 2A and 2B ). Thus, these strains could use either CXCR4 or CCR5 for fusion with macrophages.
![]() View larger version (40K): [in a new window] |
Figure 2. Fusion mediated by HIV-1 Env and CCR5 or CXCR4 on macrophages. Primary
MDM targets were derived from donors homozygous for the CCR5 wild-type
or 32 deletion allele, and AMD3100 was added 1 h before cell
mixing. (A) Fusion was tested using effector 293T cells that were
infected with recombinant vaccinia viruses expressing Env from the
prototype X4 T-tropic strain IIIB or dual-tropic R5X4 strains DH12 and
89.6. (B) Fusion was tested using effector 293T cells that were
infected with recombinant vaccinia virus expressing T7 polymerase and
then transfected with plasmids encoding T7-driven env genes
from the prototype M-tropic R5 strain JRFL or two X4 primary isolates,
UG021 and UG024. The difference in scales for panels A and B is because
recombinant vaccinia-expressed Envs give higher levels of fusion than
T7-driven Envs.
|
Productive macrophage infection supported by CXCR4 or CCR5
To characterize pathways of productive macrophage infection,
wild-type and CCR5-negative macrophages were infected, with or without
CXCR4 blockade, using the panel of HIV-1 strains examined above for
fusion (Fig. 3
). As expected, JRFL replicated in wild-type macrophages but not in
those lacking CCR5, and blocking CXCR4 had no effect on CCR5-mediated
JRFL infection. IIIB did not establish productive macrophage infection,
consistent with its well-defined T-tropic phenotype. However, very low
levels of supernatant p24 antigen were often seen with IIIB, which were
nevertheless several orders of magnitude less than those produced by
permissive strains. This illustrates that macrophage tropism, and the
restriction in macrophages to T-tropic strains, are relative rather
than absolute features. There was no difference between wild-type
macrophages and those lacking CCR5 in p24 level produced by IIIB,
indicating that the absence of CCR5 did not lead to enhanced IIIB
infection.
![]() View larger version (21K): [in a new window] |
Figure 3. Infection of macrophages via CCR5 or CXCR4. MDM from CCR5 wild-type or
32 homozygous blood donors were infected with the prototype M-tropic
R5 strain JRFL, prototype T-tropic X4 strain IIIB, dual-tropic R5X4
strains DH12 and 89.6, and primary X4 isolates UG021 and UG024. The
CXCR4 inhibitor AMD3100 was added 1 h before infections and
maintained throughout. Viral p24 antigen was measured periodically in
supernatant.
|
|
|
|---|
HIV-1 isolates have long been classified by target cell tropism based on replication patterns in vitro. The T-tropic designation applies to isolates that replicate in T cell lines and lymphocytes but not macrophages, M-tropic strains replicate in macrophages and lymphocytes but not in cell lines, and dual-tropic strains replicate in all three target cells. A valuable biological classification system was recently introduced and is now widely used that categorizes HIV-1 isolates based on major coreceptor selectivity [18 ]. Because there is a close association among prototype strains between M-tropism and CCR5 use, T-tropism and CXCR4 use, and dual-tropism and use of both coreceptors, the coreceptor classification R5, X4, R5X4 is now often employed as a surrogate for describing target cell tropism. However, our studies show that some X4 strains are restricted to infection of T cell lines and lymphocytes and therefore have the T-tropic phenotype (IIIB and other X4 prototypes), but that other X4 strains infect T cell lines, lymphocytes, and macrophages through CXCR4 and so are dual-tropic in phenotype (UG021 and UG024). As a corollary, some dual-tropic strains are R5X4 in coreceptor use but others are exclusively X4. Thus, coreceptor usage can complement but does not substitute for target cell tropism in HIV-1 phenotyping, and X4 viruses should be further classified as T- or dual-tropic, whereas dual-tropic viruses should be characterized as X4 or R5X4 (Table 2 ).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 2. Relationship Between Tropism and Coreceptor Selectivity Among HIV-1
Prototype and Primary Isolates
|
Macrophages in our study were cultured with M-CSF, which can up-regulate CXCR4 expression [16 ], but infection of macrophages by X4 strains in the absence of M-CSF has also been reported [4 , 5 ]. Nevertheless, it is possible that cytokines within local microenvironments may modulate chemokine receptor expression and regulate permissiveness for HIV-1 in vivo. In addition, freshly isolated monocytes express higher levels of CXCR4 and lower levels of CCR5 than differentiated macrophages, and the low CCR5 level is one factor in monocytes long-recognized resistance to infection by M-tropic R5 strains [20 , 21 ]. Despite their higher CXCR4 level, however, we found that monocytes are also resistant to infection by strain 89.6 (data not shown), which can use CXCR4 on macrophages. This indicates that coreceptor expression is not the only restriction to monocyte infection [22 ], and the higher level of CXCR4 expression on monocytes does not result in permissiveness for X4 HIV-1 variants.
It is not known what determines cell-specific and virus-specific coreceptor function. Macrophage CXCR4 and CD4 levels are relatively low, but this does not appear to underlie differential utilization by primary and prototype X4 strains [23 ]. Another potential mechanism for differential coreceptor utilization in macrophages is intracellular signals elicited through the chemokine receptors [24 , 25 ]. Our results do not resolve this question because we found that both CXCR4 and CCR5 activated ionic currents and elevated intracellular calcium in macrophages in response to their chemokine ligands. Alternatively, differences in coreceptor function may result from cell-specific differences in posttranslational modification, association with CD4, or co-association with other molecules that affect the ability of a chemokine receptor to function for some but not other viral strains [26 , 27 ]. Defining the factors in addition to CD4/chemokine receptor expression that are required for coreceptor activity will provide insight into the mechanisms of HIV-1 entry, and may suggest strategies to interfere with coreceptor function.
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Cassol, M. Alfano, P. Biswas, and G. Poli Monocyte-derived macrophages and myeloid cell lines as targets of HIV-1 replication and persistence J. Leukoc. Biol., November 1, 2006; 80(5): 1018 - 1030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. J. Montaner, C.-F. Perno, and S. Crowe Macrophage infection by HIV-1: focus on viral reservoirs and pathogenesis J. Leukoc. Biol., September 1, 2000; 68(3): 301 - 302. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||