2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41564-019-0585-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

HIV-2/SIV Vpx targets a novel functional domain of STING to selectively inhibit cGAS–STING-mediated NF-κB signalling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
41
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
7
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Vpr insensitivity of NF-ĸB-independent ubiquitin and EF1α promoters ( Figure 6) is consistent with this model, summarized in Figure 7 figure supplement 1A. This is important because inhibition of transfected plasmid driven protein expression may explain the effect of cotransfected SIV Vpr on STING and cGAS signaling reported recently (Su et al, 2019). Note that STING expression was not affected by Vpr co-expression but STING was expressed from the Vpr and NF-ĸB-insensitive EF1α promoter ( Figure 6), whereas cGAS, which was not measured by western blot, was expressed from a Vpr and NF-ĸB-sensitive ( Figure 6) CMV driven plasmid VR1012 (Hartikka et al, 1996).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Vpr insensitivity of NF-ĸB-independent ubiquitin and EF1α promoters ( Figure 6) is consistent with this model, summarized in Figure 7 figure supplement 1A. This is important because inhibition of transfected plasmid driven protein expression may explain the effect of cotransfected SIV Vpr on STING and cGAS signaling reported recently (Su et al, 2019). Note that STING expression was not affected by Vpr co-expression but STING was expressed from the Vpr and NF-ĸB-insensitive EF1α promoter ( Figure 6), whereas cGAS, which was not measured by western blot, was expressed from a Vpr and NF-ĸB-sensitive ( Figure 6) CMV driven plasmid VR1012 (Hartikka et al, 1996).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…These findings extend recent observations that Vpx binds STING to suppress NF-B activation downstream of DNA sensing (28). This preceding study did not explore the role of Vpx as an NF-B signalling antagonist in the setting of cognate virus infection in the absence of pharmacological STING activation or test Vpx NF-B antagonism against the full range of NF-B agonists (28). However, similar to this work, we also found that Vpx did not inhibit cGAS/STING-induced IRF3 activation (Supplementary Fig1 E-G).…”
Section: Vpx Blocks P65 Nuclear Translocationsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…A mutant of Vpx that was recently described to prevent interaction with STING (R51AS52A) also still antagonised gene expression activated by p65 expression in a dosedependent manner as effectively as wild-type Vpx (Fig 3C). This was also true for Vpx Q76R, which is deficient for DCAF1 binding, suggesting DCAF1 independence for this activity (Fig3D) (22,27,28). Concordantly, Vpx inhibited NF-B activation in HEK293T cells depleted of DCAF1 by siRNA (Figs 3E, F).…”
Section: Vpx Inhibition Is Independent Of Dcaf1 Samhd1 and Hushsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…Thus, inhibition of NF-κB nuclear transport by Vpr likely explains the observation that Vpr suppresses expression from the CMV MIEP, but not promoters that are independent of NF-κB activity for expression. This is important because previous studies have used Vpr co-transfection with CMV MIEP driven promoters to address Vpr function (Su et al, 2019).…”
Section: Vpr Inhibits Nf-κb P65 Nuclear Translocation and Nf-κb Sensimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vpr insensitivity of NF-ĸB-independent ubiquitin and EF1α promoters ( Figure 6) is consistent with this model, summarized in Figure S7. This is important because inhibition of transfected plasmid driven protein expression may explain the effect of cotransfected SIV Vpr on STING and cGAS signaling reported recently (Su et al, 2019). Note that STING expression was not affected by Vpr co-expression but STING was expressed from the Vpr and NF-ĸB-insensitive EF1α promoter (Figure 6), whereas cGAS, which was not measured by western blot, was expressed from a Vpr and NF-ĸB-sensitive ( Figure 6) CMV driven plasmid VR1012 (Hartikka et al, 1996).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%