Marburg and Ebola Virus mRNA 3′ Untranslated Regions Contain Negative Regulators of Translation That Are Modulated by ADAR1 Editing

Abstract

The filovirus family includes deadly pathogens such as Ebola virus (EBOV) and Marburg virus (MARV). A substantial portion of filovirus genomes encode 5’ and 3’ untranslated regions (UTRs) of viral mRNAs. Select viral genomic RNA sequences corresponding to 3’UTRs are prone to editing by ADAR1. A reporter mRNA approach, in which different 5’ or 3’UTRs were inserted into luciferase encoding mRNAs, demonstrates that MARV 3’UTRs yield different levels of reporter gene expression suggesting modulation of translation. The modulation occurs in cells unable to produce miRNAs and can be recapitulated in a MARV minigenome assay. Deletion mutants identified negative regulatory regions at end of the MARV NP and L 3’UTRs. Apparent ADAR1 editing mutants were previously identified within the MARV NP 3’UTR. Introduction of these changes into the MARV nucleoprotein (NP) 3’UTR or deletion of the region targeted for editing enhances translation, as indicated by reporter assays and polysome analysis. In addition, the parental NP 3’UTR, but not the edited or deletion mutant NP 3’UTRs, induce a type I interferon (IFN) response upon transfection into cells. Because some EBOV isolates from the West Africa outbreak exhibited ADAR1 editing of the VP40 3’UTR, VP40 3’UTRs with parental and edited sequences were similarly assayed. The EBOV VP40 3’UTR edits also enhanced translation but neither the wildtype nor the edited 3’UTRs induced IFN. These findings implicate filoviral mRNA 3’UTRs as negative regulators of translation that can be inactivated by innate immune responses that induce ADAR1. Importance UTRs comprise a large percentage of filovirus genomes and are apparent targets of editing by ADAR1, an enzyme with pro- and antiviral activities. However, the functional significance of the UTRs and of ADAR1 editing have been uncertain. This study demonstrates that MARV and EBOV 3’UTRs can modulate translation, in some cases negatively. ADAR1 editing or deletion of select regions within the translation suppressing 3’UTRs, relieves the negative effects of the UTRs. These data indicate that filovirus 3’UTRs contain translation regulatory elements that are modulated by activation of ADAR1, suggesting a complex interplay between filovirus gene expression and innate immunity.

ADAR1p110 promotes Enterovirus D68 replication through its deaminase domain and inhibition of PKR pathway

“…ADAR1 was initially studied as an RNA editing enzyme. For instance, A-to-I editing at the 3′-UTR region of Marburg and Ebola viruses mediated by ADAR1 promoted translation and thus viral replication [ 34 ]. The deaminase domain of ADAR1p110 is critical for facilitating HBV replication [ 20 ], and ADAR1-mediated HBV RNA editing can help the virus evade recognition by the immune system [ 35 ].…”

Host-mediated RNA editing in viruses

“…Aside from HDV and MeV, RNA editing has also been reported in several other –ssRNA viruses, such as influenza A virus (IAV) [ 99 , 100 ], dengue virus [ 99 ], lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) [ 101 ], Ebola virus (EBOV) [ 102 ], and Marburg virus [ 102 ]. It was computationally suggested that host-mediated RNA editing is essential for IAV genome replication and viral protein synthesis [ 99 ], exerting a proviral effect by ADAR1p150 to activate the RIG-I (retinoic acid inducible gene I) signaling pathway without deamination [ 100 ].…”

Ebola virus outbreak returns to the Democratic Republic of Congo: An urgent rising concern

“…Ebola virus belongs to the Filoviridae family, which comprises three genera: Ebolavirus, Marburgvirus, and Cuevavirus [ 12 ]. This virus is a non-segmented, negative-stranded RNA virus, hence, it encodes a non-proofreading RNA-dependent RNA polymerase [ 12 ].…”

“…Ebola virus belongs to the Filoviridae family, which comprises three genera: Ebolavirus, Marburgvirus, and Cuevavirus [ 12 ]. This virus is a non-segmented, negative-stranded RNA virus, hence, it encodes a non-proofreading RNA-dependent RNA polymerase [ 12 ]. Therefore, the absence of proofreading predisposes EBV to higher frequencies of genetic mutations, thus promoting adaptability and expansion of the virus [ 13 ].…”