Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, August 2000, p. 7422-7430, Vol. 74, No. 16
Division of Virology, National Institute for
Medical Research, London NW7 1AA, United Kingdom
Received 22 February 2000/Accepted 23 May 2000
To probe the genetic determinants controlling the interaction
between the retroviral restriction gene Fv1 and its murine
leukemia virus target, we set out to develop rapid, transient assays
for Fv1 function. Cells were transfected or transduced with
Fv1 expression plasmids which can produce green fluorescent
protein via an internal ribosome entry site positioned between the
Fv1 and green fluorescent protein coding sequences.
Fv1 function was then assessed by comparing virus
replication in green fluorescent protein-positive and -negative cells,
using retroviral vectors encoding a second fluorescent marker, yellow
fluorescent protein, or Starting in the 1960s, a number of
genes which affect the susceptibility of mice to infection by MLV have
been described (21). Many of these genes were found to alter
host immune responses to virus (11); only a few represent
cell autonomous resistance genes (21). One of these is
Fv1 (Friend virus susceptibility 1). First described in 1970 (15), it acts to block retrovirus replication at a stage
after penetration but before integration (12, 20). Early
studies showed that murine leukemia viruses could be subdivided into
three categories based on their ability to replicate on cells derived
from the embryos of different strains of mice (16). The
still current classification into N-, B-, and NB-tropic viruses is
based on whether they are restricted, in vitro and in vivo, by one of
the two major Fv1 alleles; B-tropic viruses are restricted
by Fv1n, whereas N-tropic viruses are restricted
by Fv1b. The NB-tropic viruses appear unaffected
by Fv1, since they grow equally well in mice carrying either
allele of Fv1 or in cells derived from them. Virus
resistance mediated by Fv1 is dominant in genetic crosses,
so that Fv1n/b heterozygous animals are
resistant to both N- and B-tropic viruses (19).
Fv1 restriction is not absolute but results in a 50- to 1,000-fold reduction in viral titer in vitro (10).
Initial studies showed that viral N- or B-tropism is determined by two
adjacent amino acids at positions 109 and 110 of CA. N-tropic viruses
have glutamine and arginine, at these positions, and B-tropic viruses
have threonine and glutamate (7, 18). A more recent study
indicates that only the amino acid at position 110 is important
(14). The changes resulting in NB-tropism remain to be fully
defined. Consistent with the site of action of Fv1, CA remains
associated with reverse transcription complexes during the early stages
of the retroviral life cycle (9).
Fv1 appears to represent an ancient retroviral gag protein co-opted by
the host cell to prevent viral infections (2, 3). The
Fv1b allele consists of a single ORF of
approximately 1,400 nucleotides encoding a protein product of 459 amino
acids (3). Fv1n encodes a protein 19 amino acids shorter than the Fv1b product
(3). There are also two other differences between the two
alleles near the C terminus: Fv1b has a Glu and
Fv1n has a lysine at position 358, and the Arg in
Fv1b is replaced by a valine in Fv1n at
position 399.
With the cloned Fv1 in hand, we wanted to study the nature
of the interaction between the Fv1 gene product and the MLV CA target.
One aim has been to carry out a detailed genetic study of the
determinants regulating the specificity of this interaction. To
facilitate this analysis, we wanted to set up a reliable assay for
Fv1 function which would allow us to test multiple Fv1 and CA derivatives rapidly. This paper describes such an assay and some of
the first insights into the mechanism of Fv1 that it provides.
Abbreviations used in this paper.
MLV, murine leukemia
virus; CA, the MLV capsid protein (p30); CMV, cytomegalovirus; EGFP,
enhanced green fluorescent protein; EYFP, enhanced yellow fluorescent
protein; IRES, internal ribosome entry site; ORF, open reading frame;
VSV G, vesticular stomatitis virus G protein; B-3T3, BALB 3T3 cells;
N-3T3, NIH 3T3 cells; DMEM, Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium; FACS,
fluorescence-activated cell sorter; X-Gal,
5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl- Recombinant DNA.
All recombinant DNA work was done by
established techniques (22). The constructs used are
illustrated in Fig. 1 and are described
below; the structure of each plasmid was verified by restriction
mapping and/or sequencing prior to use. All DNA preparations were
purified on Qiagen columns prior to transfection.
0022-538X/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Use of a Transient Assay for Studying the Genetic
Determinants of Fv1 Restriction
and
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-galactosidase. Using this assay, we could
show that Fv1 specificities were not as absolute as
previously thought, since the Fv1b allele was
capable of interacting with "nonrestricted" B- and NB-tropic
viruses and by shuffling the n- and b-alleles of Fv1, it
was possible to generate a Fv1 molecule capable of restricting N-, B-,
and NB-tropic viruses equally efficiently. Further, we could show that
the presence of nonrestricting Fv1 in the same cell as restrictive Fv1
abrogates restriction, implying competition for binding to the
retroviral target.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
-D-galactopyranoside.

View larger version (39K):
[in a new window]
FIG. 1.
Schematic drawings of the plasmid constructs used in the
assays. (A) pIRES2-EGFP/Fv1n and pIRES2-EGFP/Fv1b are Fv1
expression vectors used for the transfection assay. Driven by the CMV
immediate-early promoter, the Fv1 alleles and EGFP are
expressed from a bicistronic mRNA. (B) Constructs used for transient
production of delivery viruses after transfection into 293T cells.
pLFv1nIEG, pLFv1bIEG, and pLFv1MMxIEG are retroviral packaging vectors
for Fv1 and EGFP expression in the target cell; pHIT60 is a
gag-pol expression plasmid; and pczVSV-G is a VSV G expression plasmid.
(C) Constructs for tester viruses. pCI G3 N, pCI G3 B, and pHIT60 are
N-, B-, or NB-tropic gag-pol expression plasmids (Bsr is the
blastocidin resistance gene); pMFG-NLSLacZ is a retroviral vector
containing lacZ with a nuclear localization signal (NLS);
pCFG2fEYFP is a retroviral vector for EYFP. SV40, simian virus 40; LTR,
long terminal repeat.
-galactosidase
(pMFG-NLSLacZ) (5) or EYFP, the enhanced yellow fluorescent
protein (pCFG2fEYFPf) were kindly provided by Y. Takeuchi and D. Lindemann, respectively.
An MLV gag-pol expression plasmid (pHIT60) encoding NB-tropic CA was
provided by Y. Soneoka (23). Constructs encoding N- and
B-tropic gag-pol were prepared starting with an RNA-packaging-deficient mutant of N-tropic MLV, pC18deltapsi/10-1-C (4). A 3.7-kb
EcoRI-SalI fragment containing all of gag and some of pol
was subcloned downstream of the CMV promoter in pCI-neo (Promega),
modified by EagI dropout to remove extraneous sequences,
generating plasmid pCIG2. A 4.3-kb SaI-EcoRI
fragment from pCeB (5), containing the rest of pol plus the
Bsr antibiotic resistance gene and the simian virus 40 polyadenylation
sequences, was subcloned into PCRScript and then transferred as a
SalI-NotI fragment to pCIG2 to generate pCIG3N. pCIG3B was constructed in a similar way, starting with an altered pC18deltapsi/10-1-C EcoRI-SalI derivative which
had been modified to encode B-tropic CA by transfer of a 1.4-kb
SstII-HindIII fragment from pWB5
(18). Plasmids pC18deltapsi/10-1-C and pWB5 were provided by
L. Boone.
An envelope expression construct for the VSV G-protein (pczVSV-G) was
also provided by D. Lindemann.
Cells and viruses.
Cell lines from murine fibroblasts
(Mus dunni, B-3T3, and N-3T3) and mink lung epithelia (ATCC
CCL-64) were cultivated in DMEM containing 10% fetal calf serum and
antibiotics. Viruses were generated by simultaneous calcium
phosphate-mediated transient transfections of 293T cells with three
plasmids providing vector, gag-pol, and env functions (23).
At 24 h after transfection, cells were grown for 8 to 10 h in
DMEM-10 mM sodium butyrate to stimulate CMV promoter-driven
expression. At 48 h after transfection, the virus-containing
supernatant was harvested, passed through a 0.45-µm-pore-size filter
(Millipore), and stored at
70°C.
FACS. All FACS experiments were performed using a FACS Vantage (Becton Dickinson). The XF500/T filter set (Glen Spectra) was used to separate the EGFP from the EYFP fluorescence signal. The data were analyzed with the WinMDI 2.8 freeware package (Joseph Trotter, Scripps Institute).
Fv1 assays. (i) Derivation and assay of
Fv1-expressing single-cell clones.
CCL-64 cells were
transduced with the delivery viruses carrying
Fv1n or Fv1b and the EGFP
gene. After 72 h, EGFP-positive cells were sorted and recultured.
At 5 days later, single-cell clones were isolated by limiting dilution.
Clones derived from single cells were retested for EGFP expression
after about 5 weeks in culture and for Fv1 function by
infection with equal amounts of N-, B-, or NB-tropic, lacZ-carrying tester virus. Quadruplicate cultures of each
single-cell clone (2 × 104 cells/well) were set up in
12-well plates (Costar) 16 h prior to infection. At 48 h
after infection, the number of
-galactosidase-active cells was
determined following staining with X-Gal as previously described
(1) by counting blue cells in each well.
(ii) Transfection assay. A 7.5-µg sample of transfection plasmid (pIRES2-EGFP/Fv1 [Fig. 1A]) was diluted in OptiMEM (containing no serum, proteins, or antibiotics) in a total volume of 150 µl. Then 37.5 µl of Superfect reagent (Qiagen) was added to the DNA solution and mixed, and the solution was incubated at room temperature for 10 min to allow complex formation. M. dunni cells, plated 1 day previously at a density of 105 cells/well in six-well plates, were washed with PBS. A 1-ml volume of DMEM was added to each tube containing DNA complexes for transfection and mixed, and the mixture was transferred to the cells. For each construct studied, four wells of cells were transfected. The reaction mixture was incubated at 37°C for 2.5 h. After this time, the medium was removed and fresh medium was added to the well. The cells were incubated for 24 h, when the medium was replaced with 1 ml of DMEM containing equal titers of N-, B-, or NB-tropic lacZ-carrying tester virus (Fig. 1C), and the cells were incubated at 37°C overnight.
The cells were trypsinised, pooled, and resuspended in DMEM to a concentration of 2 × 105 to 3 × 105 cells/ml. They were then sorted by FACS into GFP-positive and -negative populations. The sorted cells were plated into a 24-well plate at approximately 105 cells/well and allowed to settle overnight. The plates were fixed and stained with X-Gal. The numbers of blue cells in both populations were counted and compared.(iii) Transduction assay. A total of 2 × 104 to 3 × 104 cells of each cell line to be tested were seeded per well of a 12-well plate. At 16 h later, the cells were transduced with NB-tropic delivery virus carrying one allele of Fv1 in the Fv1-IRES-EGFP cassette (Fig. 1B). At 56 h later, the cells were split 1:12; they were transduced with the tester virus (Fig. 1C) 16 h later. At 48 h after the second transduction, cells were harvested, fixed in phosphate-buffered saline-3.5% formaldehyde, and examined for their EGFP and EYFP expression by FACS analysis.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To examine the interaction between Fv1 and its viral target, we set out to develop a rapid assay for biological studies of Fv1 function. Such an assay should have the following features: it should enable us to test recombinant Fv1 proteins (and recombinant MLV capsids) with mutations and deletions, and it should be fast, reliable, and reproducible. The key requirement for any Fv1 assay is to measure Fv1 function only in pure populations of cells expressing the gene. Our previous studies (3) had relied on the derivation of single-cell clones to meet this requirement; however, this procedure is both laborious and time-consuming and not all "clones" show activity. As an alternative approach, we have now explored the possibility of coupling Fv1 expression to an EGFP reporter gene using a bicistronic mRNA with an IRES element separating the two coding sequences. In this way, we could distinguish and/or separate Fv1-negative and Fv1-positive populations of cells by FACS analysis. This would allow us to compare directly the infectivity of B-, N-, and NB-tropic or recombinant MLV particles in the presence and absence of Fv1 in the same cell line in one experiment.
Transfection assay for Fv1 restriction.
To test
the above approach, we prepared Fv1-pIRES2-EGFP constructs by using the
n- and b-alleles of Fv1 (Fig. 1A). These were introduced
into Fv10 M. dunni cells by transfection. One
day later, when a significant fraction of the cells were already
expressing EGFP (data not shown), the cells were transduced with MLV
vectors consisting of the capsid proteins of interest (N-, B-, or
NB-tropic) and carrying the lacZ reporter gene as its genome
(Fig. 1C). Another day later, the cells were trypsinized, sorted into
EGFP-positive and -negative cells, and replated at equal densities; the
next day, they were stained with X-Gal to detect
-galactosidase
activity. The relative number of blue cells in the EGFP-negative and
EGFP-positive plates will reflect Fv1 activity.
Fv1 restriction will be manifested by a significant
reduction in the number of blue cells on an EGFP-positive plate
compared to the EGFP-negative control. Equal numbers of blue cells in
EGFP-positive and -negative plates would indicate the absence of
restriction. Figure 2A shows an example
of stained plates from such an experiment in which the n
allele of Fv1 had been introduced. A reduction in the number
of blue cells following infection with B-tropic virus but not NB-tropic
virus is obvious. Figure 2B and C show the numbers of blue cells
counted in typical experiments with Fv1n and
Fv1b, illustrating the expected pattern of
restriction of N-tropic virus by Fv1b and
B-tropic virus by Fv1n. Interestingly, NB-tropic
virus appeared to be restricted by about 35% by the b but
not the n allele of Fv1. This result is considered in more detail below.
|
Transduction assay for Fv1 restriction.
We set out
to overcome the above limitations and to devise an assay where we could
simultaneously detect both Fv1 expression and the
consequences of its expression, thereby taking advantage of the
analytical as opposed to the sorting properties of the FACS machine.
This necessitates the ability to discriminate signals from two
different viruses introduced into cells by transduction. The first
virus
the delivery virus
contains the Fv1 allele of interest and encodes the first signaling molecule, here EGFP, expressed
from the IRES construct. Fv1 function is tested 3 days later, when the cells are transduced with a second virus
tester virus
which is built up with the capsid protein of interest and coding
for the second signaling molecule, EYFP. Two-color FACS analysis
identifies four clearly distinguishable populations of cells, allowing
one to examine tester virus replication (assessed via EYFP) in cells
with or without Fv1 (assessed via EGFP).
and the
EGFP+ subpopulations and provide a quantitative measure of
virus integration in Fv1-negative and
Fv1-positive cells.
|
Restriction of Fv1-transduced single cell clones. The observation that Fv1b can interact with NB-tropic and B-tropic viruses stood in contrast to all previous reports, which describe Fv1b as directed solely against N-tropic viruses. We therefore decided to investigate whether the cells or assay conditions used could provide an explanation for our divergent results. First, we tested single-cell clones expressing the Fv1-IRES-EGFP construct using a lacZ indicator virus, thereby allowing us to describe restriction in terms of absolute cell counts rather than as percentages of a population.
CCL-64 cells were transduced with the delivery viruses, carrying Fv1n or Fv1b and encoding EGFP, at a multiplicity of infection of 0.1 to ensure that no cell became doubly infected. EGFP-positive cells were sorted using the FACS machine, and 5 days later single-cell clones were isolated by limiting dilution. After 5 weeks, we obtained 21 EGFP-positive single-cell clones of the CCL-64 cells transduced with Fv1n, of which 19 showed the expected restriction pattern. Of the 20 Fv1b single-cell clones, 19 showed restriction. For our infection experiment with the lacZ-carrying tester viruses, we chose 17 clones of each allele with comparable growth rates. We infected the single-cell clones with B-, N- or NB-tropic lacZ-carrying viruses and counted the blue cells after staining for
-galactosidase activity (Fig.
4). Consistent with previous reports, the
Fv1n-expressing clones exerted an approximately
100-fold restriction on the B-tropic viruses and had no effect on N-
and NB-tropic viruses. Fv1b also restricted the
N-tropic viruses by a factor of 100 and reduced the number of blue
cells after an infection with B-tropic viruses to 70% of the number in
Fv1-negative controls and it restricted the NB-tropic
viruses by a factor of 10. The overall outcome of this experiment
closely resembled that obtained by FACS analysis, thereby providing
validation for the former approach as an assay method.
|
Transduction assay on cells naturally expressing Fv1. We wondered whether the differences observed in Fv1b specificity might result from differences in Fv1 mRNA level and thus in the level of Fv1 protein. Previous experiments (unpublished data cited in reference 3) had indicated that the natural level of expression was very low, whereas Fv1 in our experiments (except in the transfection assay, where Fv1 expression was driven by the CMV promoter) was expressed from the more active MLV long terminal repeat promoter. To address this issue, we examined the natural Fv1-expressing cell lines N-3T3 (Fv1n) and B-3T3 (Fv1b) in our transduction assay.
The introduction of Fv1n into N-3T3 cells (Fig. 5A, left) did not enhance the restriction of B-tropic viruses (2 versus 2%). Consistent with the previous findings, Fv1n had no significant influence on N-tropic (38 versus 35%) or NB-tropic (66 versus 63%) viruses. On the other hand, additionally expressed Fv1b in B-3T3 cells (Fig. 5A, right) clearly inhibited NB-tropic (33 versus 6%) and B-tropic (24 versus 13%) viruses. The enhancement of restriction of N-tropic viruses was not significant (2 versus 1%). These results are fully consistent with the proposition that increasing the level of Fv1b can reveal a previously unsuspected ability to interact with, and restrict, B- and NB-tropic viruses. Fv1n seems to lack this ability.
|
Restriction of Fv1 mix-and-match mutants. The products of the n and b alleles of Fv1 differ at amino acid positions 358 (b, Glu; n, Lys) and 399 (b, Arg; n, Val) and the C terminus (3). We wanted to investigate which of these differences are responsible for the specificity in Fv1 action against a particular MLV CA protein. For this purpose, we constructed the six possible mix-and-match mutants using megaprimer PCR and cloned them into our retroviral plasmid vector for the delivery virus (Fig. 1B, pLMMxIEG). Then we tested these Fv1 variants for restriction in the transduction assay with B-, N-, and NB-tropic viruses on M. dunni and CCL-64 cells.
Similar results were obtained with both cell lines. Figure 6 depicts the qualitative results of these experiments. Restriction specificity was determined in a complex manner involving all three positions. The amino acid at position 358 had the strongest influence on restriction specificity: all mutants with a Lys at this position (nxx) restricted B-tropic viruses, and all mutants with a Glu (bxx) restricted N-tropic viruses. Arg at position 399 (xbx) was necessary for restriction of NB-tropic viruses (bbb, bbn, and nbn), whereas Val at position 399 (xnx) seemed to have only minor importance. More difficult to interpret is the influence of the C termini on the restrictive behavior of the variants: generally, the long b C-terminus (xxb) had a restriction weakening effect. The short n C-terminus (xxn) augmented the NB-restricting ability of Arg at 399 (bbn and nbn), and together with a Glu at 358, it seemed to determine a second way to restrict B-tropic viruses (bbn and bnn).
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Currently, little is known about how Fv1 interacts with its target, the CA of MLVs. To study the Fv1-CA interaction in more detail, we have developed a novel assay for Fv1 function. This assay enables us to test the activity of both wild-type and mutant Fv1 in a fast, reproducible, and reliable manner. We anticipate that use of this assay will allow us to shed light on some of the early events in the retroviral life cycle.
The assay has a number of important differences from previous assays of Fv1 function. All the viruses we used are transiently produced in 293T cells after transfection of three plasmids (23), a gag-pol expression plasmid, a plasmid for the VSV G protein as an envelope protein, and an MLV vector lacking all sequences encoding gag, pol, and env but instead encoding the Fv1-IRES-EGFP cassette (delivery viruses) or a marker gene (tester viruses). This allows us to introduce precisely defined changes into Fv1 and CA and to compare their effects in a single cell type. Further, these viruses are replication incompetent, and no secondary effects caused by viral replication in the target cells can complicate the experimental outcome. The use of VSV G as the envelope protein allows the use of a wide range of cell lines, including both those that naturally express Fv1 and those that do not, with a single virus preparation. The ability to control the number of cells expressing Fv1 by altering the multiplicity of infection of the delivery virus gives us a natural internal control for all our experiments. Finally, because we can identify Fv1-expressing cells by use of a bicistronic expression plasmid without lengthy drug selections to obtain clonal cell populations, the assays are much more rapid than those we have used previously (3). From designing a mutation in Fv1 to knowing its effect currently takes us less than 3 weeks (K. N. Bishop, unpublished data).
In our system, Fv1n behaved exactly as predicted based on previous studies of "natural" Fv1 resistance (10, 12); it restricted B-tropic viruses and had no effect on N- and NB-tropic viruses. By contrast, Fv1b did not give the exact phenotype reported previously. Although it restricted N-tropic viruses, it also showed unexpected but reproducible inhibitory effects on B-tropic (30% reduction of infected cells) and NB-tropic (5- to 10-fold reduction) viruses. However, two lines of argument persuade us that this does not represent a significant discrepancy but instead reflects the power of our assay to pick up relatively subtle differences. First, previous biological assays would not have picked up a 30% reduction in viral titer given the non-Fv1-associated differences between any two different cell lines. Even a 5- to 10-fold reduction might have been equivocal. However, the presence of an internal nontransduced control gives us confidence in even relatively small decreases such as the reduction in B-tropic virus titer in Fv1b-transduced versus nontransduced cells shown in Fig. 3 and 5. Second, the level of Fv1 mRNA expression is likely to be much higher with our constructs, driven by the MLV promoter, than with the natural promoter. Ongoing experiments to determine the amounts of Fv1 protein present in transduced cells seem to confirm this view (M. Bock, unpublished data). It would also be consistent with the effects of Fv1b on B- and NB-tropic MLV replication in B-3T3 cells (Fig. 5A). We conclude that restriction by Fv1b and by Fv1n are not simply reciprocal interactions but that Fv1b can interact with a wider spectrum of viruses. Interestingly, although Fv1 concentration appears to influence the target for restriction, it does not appear to increase the level of restriction (50- to 100-fold [Fig. 4]) observed in previous studies with the endogenous gene (10).
Amino acid 110 of CA clearly plays an important role in determining N- or B-tropism. Natural N-tropic MLV isolates have the basic residue Arg at position 110, whereas B-tropic MLV has the acidic amino acid Glu (7, 18), but replacement of Arg by Lys or Glu by Asp does not change the tropism (14). It was therefore striking that one of the differences (amino acid 358) between Fv1n and Fv1b was a reciprocal acidic-to-basic change (Fv1n contains Lys; Fv1b contains Glu) (3). The mix-and-match experiments presented in Fig. 6 confirm that this amino acid plays a key role in virus restriction. All the constructs carrying a Lys at this position restricted B-tropic MLV; similarly, a Glu at this position was associated with N-tropic virus restriction. Determination of whether the Fv1 region around amino acid 358 binds directly to the capsid region around amino acids 109 and 110 awaits the development of a specific binding assay. However, the results show that specific restriction can also be achieved by other combinations of the three determinants, including a very strong restriction of the NB-tropic virus by Fv1 bbn. Therefore, the data provide further evidence for our conclusion that the interaction between Fv1 and CA is more than a simple reciprocal one-point binding involving CA position 110 and Fv1 position 358.
The finding that the transduced Fv1 can compete with the naturally expressed Fv1 in N-3T3 and B-3T3 cells (Fig. 5A) came as something of a surprise in light of the genetic data showing that Fv1 is a dominant gene (19), but again it points to the importance of Fv1 concentration. One possible explanation is that Fv1 always binds to the incoming subviral particles whether or not it can restrict it. In this case, the transduced and highly expressed nonrestrictive Fv1 covers the binding sites on the virus particle, preventing binding by the normally restricting natural Fv1. Such a mechanism would imply that binding per se does not cause restriction. An alternative explanation postulates that Fv1 should be localized in a specific cell compartment that the virus particle traverses en route to the nucleus. High levels of transduced, nonrestricting Fv1 would then simply outcompete the natural Fv1 for localization rather than binding to CA. The observation that Fv1 restriction can be abrogated by preinfection with restricted but not nonrestricted MLV (8) perhaps argues for the latter possibility.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank D. Lindemann, Y. Takeuchi, M. Eiden, A. Terry, G. Soneoka, and L. Boone for generously providing plasmids and C. Atkins for invaluable help with FACS analysis.
This work was supported by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Division of Virology, National Institute for Medical Research, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-208/959-3666, ext. 2140. Fax: 44-208/906-4477. E-mail: jstoye{at}nimr.mrc.ac.uk.
Present address: Wohl Virion Centre, Windeyer Institute of Medical
Sciences, University College London, London W1P 6DB, United Kingdom.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Beddington, R. S., J. Morgernstern, H. Land, and A. Hogan. 1989. An in situ transgenic enzyme marker for the midgestation mouse embryo and the visualization of inner cell mass clones during early organogenesis. Development 106:37-46[Abstract]. |
| 2. | Bénit, L., N. de Parseval, J.-F. Casella, I. Callebaut, A. Cordonnier, and T. Heidmann. 1997. Cloning of a new murine endogenous retrovirus, MuERV-L, with strong similarity to the human HERV-L element and a gag coding sequence closely related to the Fv1 restriction gene. J. Virol. 71:5652-5657[Abstract]. |
| 3. | Best, S., P. Le Tissier, G. Towers, and J. P. Stoye. 1996. Positional cloning of the mouse retrovirus restriction gene Fv1. Nature 382:826-829[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 4. |
Boone, L. R.,
C. L. Innes,
P. L. Glover, and E. Linney.
1989.
Development and characterization of an Fv-1-sensitive retrovirus-packaging system: single-hit titration kinetics observed in restrictive cells.
J. Virol.
63:2592-2597 |
| 5. | Cosset, F.-L., Y. Takeuchi, J.-L. Battini, R. A. Weiss, and M. K. L. Collins. 1995. High-titer packaging cells producing recombinant retroviruses resistant to human serum. J. Virol. 69:7430-7436[Abstract]. |
| 6. |
Datta, A. K.
1995.
Efficient amplification using `megaprimer' by asymmetric polymerase chain reaction.
Nucleic Acids Res.
23:4530-4531 |
| 7. |
DesGroseillers, L., and P. Jolicoeur.
1983.
Physical mapping of the Fv-1 tropism host range determinant of BALB/c murine leukemia viruses.
J. Virol.
48:685-696 |
| 8. | Duran-Troise, G., R. H. Bassin, A. Rein, and B. I. Gerwin. 1977. Loss of Fv-1 restriction in Balb/3T3 cells following infection with a single N tropic murine leukemia particle. Cell 10:479-488[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 9. |
Fassati, A., and S. P. Goff.
1999.
Characterization of intracellular reverse transcription complexes of Moloney murine leukemia virus.
J. Virol.
73:8919-8925 |
| 10. |
Hartley, J. W.,
W. P. Rowe, and R. J. Huebner.
1970.
Host-range restrictions of murine leukemia viruses in mouse embryo cell cultures.
J. Virol.
5:221-225 |
| 11. |
Hasenkrug, K. J., and B. Chesebro.
1997.
Immunity to retroviral infection: the Friend virus model.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94:7811-7816 |
| 12. | Jolicoeur, P. 1979. The Fv-1 gene of the mouse and its control of murine leukemia virus replication. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 86:67-122[Medline]. |
| 13. |
Kammann, M.,
J. Laufs,
J. Schell, and B. Gronenborn.
1989.
Rapid insertional mutagenesis of DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
Nucleic Acids Res.
17:5404 |
| 14. | Kozak, C. A., and A. Chakraborti. 1996. Single amino acid changes in the murine leukemia virus capsid protein gene define the target for Fv1 resistance. Virology 225:300-306[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 15. | Lilly, F. 1970. Fv-2: identification and location of a second gene governing the spleen focus response to Friend leukemia virus in mice. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 45:163-169. |
| 16. | Lilly, F., and T. Pincus. 1973. Genetic control of murine viral leukemogenesis. Adv. Cancer Res. 17:231-277. |
| 17. | Lindemann, D., M. Bock, M. Schweizer, and A. Rethwilm. 1997. Efficient pseudotyping of murine leukemia virus particles with chimeric human foamy virus envelope proteins. J. Virol. 71:4815-4820[Abstract]. |
| 18. |
Ou, C.-Y.,
L. R. Boone,
C.-K. Koh,
R. W. Tennant, and W. K. Yang.
1983.
Nucleotide sequences of the gag-pol regions that determine the Fv-1 host range property of BALB/c N-tropic and B-tropic murine leukemia viruses.
J. Virol.
48:779-784 |
| 19. | Pincus, T., J. W. Hartley, and W. P. Rowe. 1971. A major genetic locus affecting resistance to infection with murine leukemia viruses. I. Tissue culture studies of naturally occurring viruses. J. Exp. Med. 133:1219-1233[Abstract]. |
| 20. |
Pryciak, P. M., and H. E. Varmus.
1992.
Fv-1 restriction and its effects on murine leukemia virus integration in vivo and in vitro.
J. Virol.
66:5959-5966 |
| 21. | Rosenberg, N., and P. Jolicoeur. 1997. Retroviral pathogenesis, p. 475-585. In J. M. Coffin, S. H. Hughes, and H. E. Varmus (ed.), Retroviruses. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. |
| 22. | Sambrook, J., E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. |
| 23. |
Soneoka, Y.,
P. M. Cannon,
E. E. Ramsdale,
J. C. Griffiths,
G. Romano,
S. M. Kingsman, and A. J. Kingsman.
1995.
A transient three-plasmid expression system for the production of high titer retroviral vectors.
Nucleic Acids Res.
23:628-633 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»