The lytic cycles of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) are induced in cell culture by sodium butyrate (NaB), a short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor. Valproic acid (VPA), another SCFA and an HDAC inhibitor, induces the lytic cycle of KSHV but blocks EBV lytic reactivation. To explore the hypothesis that structural differences between NaB and VPA account for their functional effects on the two related viruses, we investigated the capacity of 16 structurally related short-and medium-chain fatty acids to promote or prevent lytic cycle reactivation. SCFAs differentially affected EBV and KSHV reactivation. KSHV was reactivated by all SCFAs that are HDAC inhibitors, including phenylbutyrate. However, several fatty acid HDAC inhibitors, such as isobutyrate and phenylbutyrate, did not reactivate EBV. Reactivation of KSHV lytic transcripts could not be blocked completely by any fatty acid tested. In contrast, several medium-chain fatty acids inhibited lytic activation of EBV. Fatty acids that blocked EBV reactivation were more lipophilic than those that activated EBV. VPA blocked activation of the BZLF1 promoter by NaB but did not block the transcriptional function of ZEBRA. VPA also blocked activation of the DNA damage response that accompanies EBV lytic cycle activation. Properties of SCFAs in addition to their effects on chromatin are likely to explain activation or repression of EBV. We concluded that fatty acids stimulate the two related human gammaherpesviruses to enter the lytic cycle through different pathways. IMPORTANCELytic reactivation of EBV and KSHV is needed for persistence of these viruses and plays a role in carcinogenesis. Our direct comparison highlights the mechanistic differences in lytic reactivation between related human oncogenic gammaherpesviruses. Our findings have therapeutic implications, as fatty acids are found in the diet and produced by the human microbiota. Small-molecule inducers of the lytic cycle are desired for oncolytic therapy. Inhibition of viral reactivation, alternatively, may prove useful in cancer treatment. Overall, our findings contribute to the understanding of pathways that control the latent-to-lytic switch and identify naturally occurring molecules that may regulate this process.

Reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) from latency into the lytic phase of its life cycle allows the virus to spread among cells and between hosts. Valproic acid (VPA) inhibits initiation of the lytic cycle in EBV-infected B lymphoma cells. While VPA blocks viral lytic gene expression, it induces expression of many cellular genes, because it is a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor. Here we show, using derivatives of VPA, that blockade of EBV reactivation is separable from HDAC inhibition. Valpromide (VPM), an amide derivative of valproic acid that is not an HDAC inhibitor, prevented expression of two EBV genes, BZLF1 and BRLF1, that mediate lytic reactivation. VPM also inhibited expression of a viral late gene, but not early genes, when BZLF1 was exogenously expressed. Unlike VPA, VPM did not activate lytic expression of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. Expression of cellular immediate-early genes, such as FOS and EGR1, is kinetically upstream of the EBV lytic cycle. VPM did not activate expression of these cellular immediate-early genes but decreased their level of expression when induced by butyrate, an HDAC inhibitor. VPM did not alter expression of several other cellular immediate-early genes, including STAT3, which were induced by the HDAC inhibitors in cells refractory to lytic induction. Therefore, VPM selectively inhibits both viral and cellular gene expression. VPA and VPM represent a new class of antiviral agents. The mechanism by which VPA and VPM block EBV reactivation may be related to their anticonvulsant activity.