Abstract
Viral reproduction involves not only replication but also interactions with host defences. Although various viral proteins can take part in counteracting innate and adaptive immunity, many viruses possess a subset of proteins that are specifically dedicated to counter-defensive activities. These proteins are sometimes referred to as 'virulence factors', but here we argue that the term 'security proteins' is preferable, for several reasons.
The concept of security proteins of RNA-containing viruses can be considered using the leader (L and L*) and 2A proteins of picornaviruses as examples. The picornaviruses are a large group of human and animal viruses that include important pathogens such as poliovirus, hepatitis A virus and foot-and-mouth disease virus. The genomes of different picornaviruses have a similar organization, in which the genes for L and 2A occupy fixed positions upstream and downstream of the capsid genes, respectively.
Both L and 2A are extremely heterogeneous with respect to size, sequence and biochemical properties. The similarly named proteins can be completely unrelated to each other in different viral genera, and the variation can be striking even among members of the same genus. A subset of picornaviruses lacks L altogether.
The properties and functions of L and 2A of many picornaviruses are unknown, but in those viruses that have been investigated sufficiently it has been found that these proteins can switch off various aspects of host macromolecular synthesis and specifically suppress mechanisms involved in innate immunity. Thus, notwithstanding their unrelatedness, the security proteins carry out similar biological functions. It is proposed that other picornavirus L and 2A proteins that have not yet been investigated should also be primarily involved in security activities.
The L, L* and 2A proteins are dispensable for viral reproduction, but their elimination or inactivation usually renders the viruses less pathogenic. The phenotypic changes associated with inactivation of security proteins are much less pronounced in cells or organisms that have innate immunity deficiencies. In several examples, the decreased fitness of a virus in which a security protein has been inactivated could be rescued by the experimental introduction of an unrelated security protein.
It can be argued that L and 2A were acquired by different picornaviruses independently, and possibly by exploiting different mechanisms, late in the evolution of this viral family.
It is proposed that the concept of security proteins is of general relevance and can be applied to viruses other than picornaviruses. The hallmarks of security proteins are: structural and biochemical unrelatedness in related viruses or even absence in some of them; dispensability of the entire protein or its functional domains for viral viability; and, for mutated versions of the proteins, fewer detrimental effects on viral reproduction in immune-compromised hosts than in immune-competent hosts.
Viral security proteins are structurally and biochemically unrelated proteins that function to counteract host defences. Here, Agol and Gmyl consider the impact of the picornavirus security proteins on viral reproduction, pathogenicity and evolution.
Interactions with host defences are key aspects of viral infection. Various viral proteins perform counter-defensive functions, but a distinct class, called security proteins, is dedicated specifically to counteracting host defences. Here, the properties of the picornavirus security proteins L and 2A are discussed. These proteins have well-defined positions in the viral polyprotein, flanking the capsid precursor, but they are structurally and biochemically unrelated. Here, we consider the impact of these two proteins, as well as that of a third security protein, L*, on viral reproduction, pathogenicity and evolution. The concept of security proteins could serve as a paradigm for the dedicated counter-defensive proteins of other viruses.
Collapse