Yaba-like disease virus chemokine receptor 7L, a CCR8 orthologue

Tutorial: design, production and testing of oncolytic viruses for cancer immunotherapy

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) represent a novel class of cancer immunotherapy agents that preferentially infect and kill cancer cells and promote protective antitumor immunity. Furthermore, OVs can be used in combination with established or upcoming immunotherapeutic agents, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, to efficiently target a wide range of malignancies. The development of OV-based therapy involves three major steps before clinical evaluation: design, production and preclinical testing. OVs can be designed as natural or engineered strains and subsequently selected for their ability to kill a broad spectrum of cancer cells rather than normal, healthy cells. OV selection is further influenced by multiple factors, such as the availability of a specific viral platform, cancer cell permissivity, the need for genetic engineering to render the virus non-pathogenic and/or more effective and logistical considerations around the use of OVs within the laboratory or clinical setting. Selected OVs are then produced and tested for their anticancer potential by using syngeneic, xenograft or humanized preclinical models wherein immunocompromised and immunocompetent setups are used to elucidate their direct oncolytic ability as well as indirect immunotherapeutic potential in vivo. Finally, OVs demonstrating the desired anticancer potential progress toward translation in patients with cancer. This tutorial provides guidelines for the design, production and preclinical testing of OVs, emphasizing considerations specific to OV technology that determine their clinical utility as cancer immunotherapy agents.

Chemokines encoded by herpesviruses

Viruses use diverse strategies to elude the immune system, including copying and repurposing host cytokine and cytokine receptor genes. For herpesviruses, the chemokine system of chemotactic cytokines and receptors is a common source of copied genes. Here, we review the current state of knowledge about herpesvirus-encoded chemokines and discuss their possible roles in viral pathogenesis, as well as their clinical potential as novel anti-inflammatory agents or targets for new antiviral strategies.

International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. [corrected]. LXXXIX. Update on the extended family of chemokine receptors and introducing a new nomenclature for atypical chemokine receptors

Sixteen years ago, the Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Pharmacology approved a system for naming human seven-transmembrane (7TM) G protein-coupled chemokine receptors, the large family of leukocyte chemoattractant receptors that regulates immune system development and function, in large part by mediating leukocyte trafficking. This was announced in Pharmacological Reviews in a major overview of the first decade of research in this field [Murphy PM, Baggiolini M, Charo IF, Hébert CA, Horuk R, Matsushima K, Miller LH, Oppenheim JJ, and Power CA (2000) Pharmacol Rev 52:145-176]. Since then, several new receptors have been discovered, and major advances have been made for the others in many areas, including structural biology, signal transduction mechanisms, biology, and pharmacology. New and diverse roles have been identified in infection, immunity, inflammation, development, cancer, and other areas. The first two drugs acting at chemokine receptors have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), maraviroc targeting CCR5 in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS, and plerixafor targeting CXCR4 for stem cell mobilization for transplantation in cancer, and other candidates are now undergoing pivotal clinical trials for diverse disease indications. In addition, a subfamily of atypical chemokine receptors has emerged that may signal through arrestins instead of G proteins to act as chemokine scavengers, and many microbial and invertebrate G protein-coupled chemokine receptors and soluble chemokine-binding proteins have been described. Here, we review this extended family of chemokine receptors and chemokine-binding proteins at the basic, translational, and clinical levels, including an update on drug development. We also introduce a new nomenclature for atypical chemokine receptors with the stem ACKR (atypical chemokine receptor) approved by the Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Pharmacology and the Human Genome Nomenclature Committee.

Structural Diversity in Conserved Regions Like the DRY-Motif among Viral 7TM Receptors-A Consequence of Evolutionary Pressure?

Several herpes- and poxviruses have captured chemokine receptors from their hosts and modified these to their own benefit. The human and viral chemokine receptors belong to class A 7 transmembrane (TM) receptors which are characterized by several structural motifs like the DRY-motif in TM3 and the C-terminal tail. In the DRY-motif, the arginine residue serves important purposes by being directly involved in G protein coupling. Interestingly, among the viral receptors there is a greater diversity in the DRY-motif compared to their endogenous receptor homologous. The C-terminal receptor tail constitutes another regulatory region that through a number of phosphorylation sites is involved in signaling, desensitization, and internalization. Also this region is more variable among virus-encoded 7TM receptors compared to human class A receptors. In this review we will focus on these two structural motifs and discuss their role in viral 7TM receptor signaling compared to their endogenous counterparts.

Evolutionary Analysis of Functional Divergence among Chemokine Receptors, Decoy Receptors, and Viral Receptors

Chemokine receptors (CKRs) function in the inflammatory response and in vertebrate homeostasis. Decoy and viral receptors are two types of CKR homologs with modified functions from those of the typical CKRs. The decoy receptors are able to bind ligands without signaling. On the other hand, the viral receptors show constitutive signaling without ligands. We examined the sites related to the functional difference. At first, the decoy and viral receptors were each classified into five groups, based on the molecular phylogenetic analysis. A multiple amino acid sequence alignment between each group and the CKRs was then constructed. The difference in the amino acid composition between the group and the CKRs was evaluated as the Kullback-Leibler (KL) information value at each alignment site. The KL information value is considered to reflect the difference in the functional constraints at the site. The sites with the top 5% of KL information values were selected and mapped on the structure of a CKR. The comparisons with decoy receptor groups revealed that the detected sites were biased on the intracellular side. In contrast, the sites detected from the comparisons with viral receptor groups were found on both the extracellular and intracellular sides. More sites were found in the ligand binding pocket in the analyses of the viral receptor groups, as compared to the decoy receptor groups. Some of the detected sites were located in the GPCR motifs. For example, the DRY motif of the decoy receptors was often degraded, although the motif of the viral receptors was basically conserved. The observations for the viral receptor groups suggested that the constraints in the pocket region are loose and that the sites on the intracellular side are different from those for the decoy receptors, which may be related to the constitutive signaling activity of the viral receptors.

Virus-encoded G-protein-coupled receptors: constitutively active (dys)regulators of cell function and their potential as drug target

G-protein-coupled receptors encoded by herpesviruses such as EBV, HCMV and KSHV are very interesting illustrations of the (patho)physiological importance of constitutive GPCR activity. These viral proteins are expressed on the cell surface of infected cells and often constitutively activate a variety of G-proteins. For some virus-encoded GPCRs, the constitutive activity has been shown to occur in vivo, i.e., in infected cells. In this paper, we will review the occurrence of virus-encoded GPCRs and describe their known signaling properties. Moreover, we will also review the efforts, directed towards the discovery of small molecule antagonist, that so far have been mainly focused on the HCMV-encoded GPCR US28. This virus-encoded receptor might be involved in cardiovascular diseases and cancer and seems an interesting target for drug intervention.

Structure/Function Relationships of CCR8 Agonists and Antagonists

We describe here the interactions of CCR8 with its ligands using both CCR8 transfectants and a T-cell line expressing the receptor endogenously. Of the CCR8 agonists reported previously, only CCL1 and vMIP-I exhibited potency in assays of intracellular calcium flux, chemotaxis, and receptor internalization, this latter mechanism being dependent upon the expression of beta-arrestins 1 and 2 but independent of Galpha(i) signaling. NH(2)-terminal extension of the mature CCL1 sequence by a serine residue (Ser-CCL1) resulted in a partial agonist with a reduced affinity for CCR8, suggesting that the NH(2) terminus of the ligand plays a role in ligand binding to an intrahelical site. Attempts to identify key residues within this site revealed that the conserved glutamic acid residue in transmembrane helix 7, Glu-286, is crucial for trafficking of the receptor to the cell surface, while Asp-97 of transmembrane helix 2 is dispensable. CCL7 was found to inhibit both Ser-CCL1 and vMIP-I responses but not those of CCL1 itself. Similarly, vMIP-I responses were more than 2 orders of magnitude more sensitive to the specific CCR8 antagonist MC148 than those induced by CCL1, which is difficult to reconcile with the reported affinities for the receptor. Collectively, these data suggest that the CCR8 ligands are allotropic, binding to distinct sites within CCR8 and that the human immune system may have evolved to use CCL7 as a selective antagonist of viral chemokine activity at CCR8 but not those of the host ligand.