Examining the role of the cytoskeleton in DC-mediated HIV transmission enriches our understanding of viral pathogenesis. The present study suggests that HIV exploits the cytoskeleton network of DCs to facilitate viral dissemination to CD4+ T cells through VS. We showed that disrupting actin or microtubules in DCs with specific inhibitors significantly inhibited DC-mediated HIV transmission. The inhibition of HIV transmission was mainly due to altered viral trafficking and impaired formation of VS. Our results define a new mechanism underlying DC-mediated HIV transmission to T cells through the cytoskeleton network.
In our experiments, transient treatment of cells with the cytoskeleton inhibitors appeared to disrupt the cytoskeleton network, rather than directly affecting HIV infectivity. It has been shown that the pretreatment of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, but not HIV, with CytoD, inhibited viral entry and infection (
Iyengar, Hildreth, and Schwartz, 1998). In addition, Campbell
et al. observed a modest increase of HIV infection when treating HeLa cell-derived HIV indicator cells with CytoD and performing viral infection in the presence of CytoD (
Campbell, Nunez, and Hope, 2004). Although no significant cytotoxicity was detected with the transient treatment of the cytoskeleton inhibitors, these inhibitors may have broad or pleiotropic effects on intracellular trafficking and mechanical properties of cells. For example, the drug treatment may nonspecifically alter trafficking or function of some cellular proteins that are required for VS formation. Thus, further studies might provide the mechanism details underlying the role of cytoskeleton in DC-mediated HIV
trans-infection.
Recent studies also suggest an important role of cytoskeleton in DC-mediated HIV transmission. Leukocyte-specific protein 1 (LSP1), an F-actin binding protein involved in leukocyte motility, binds to DC-SIGN (for “DC-specific intercellular adhesion molecule 3 [ICAM-3]-grabbing nonintegrin”) and directs internalized HIV to the proteasome in DCs for viral degradation (
Smith et al., 2007). Silencing LSP1 expression in DCs promotes HIV transmission to CD4
+ T cells, suggesting that HIV trafficking through the cytoskeleton is important for viral transmission (
Smith et al., 2007). Moreover, HIV or DC-SIGN-specific antibodies can activate DC-SIGN signaling through the leukemia-associated Rho guanine nucleotide-exchange factor (LARG), which increases Rho-GTPase activity (
Hodges et al., 2007). Activation of LARG in DCs facilitates HIV
trans-infection of CD4
+ T cells, likely by enhancing VS formation between DCs and T cells (
Hodges et al., 2007).
Notably, different concentrations of CytoD treatment had distinct effects on DC uptake of HIV (), which might result from the distinct inhibitory functions of CytoD at different concentrations. CytoD reversibly binds the barbed end of F-actin at low concentrations and prevents F-actin recycling. At higher concentrations, CytoD binds 2 actin monomers (G-actin) and promotes the hydrolysis of bound ATP, creating low affinity ADP-G actin forms (
Fenteany and Zhu, 2003). In fact, CytoD treatment has concentration-dependent effects on the mechanical properties of the cells (
Wakatsuki et al., 2001), which might influence HIV binding to DCs and viral trafficking in DCs. Moreover, higher concentrations of CytoD treatment of DCs might reduce or delay intracellular degradation of internalized HIV, resulting in intracellular retention of HIV and increased p24 detection.
We demonstrated that macropinocytosis partially contributed to HIV endocytosis in DCs, thereby affecting DC-mediated HIV transmission to CD4
+ T cells. Gummuluru
et al. have reported the existence of C-type lectin receptor-independent and heparan sulfate proteoglycan-independent mechanisms of DC-mediated HIV internalization and transmission (
Gummuluru et al., 2003). We recently reported that mDCs are more efficient than iDCs to transfer HIV to various types of target cells independently of C-type lectins (
Wang et al., 2007b). Previous studies indicated that mDCs significantly facilitate HIV endocytosis and efficiently concentrate HIV at the VS, which contributes to mDC-enhanced viral transmission, at least in part (
Turville et al., 2004;
Wang et al., 2007b). We have confirmed that HIV did not strongly colocalize with the markers of endolysosomal trafficking in DCs, such as transferrin and LysoTracker (Wang and Wu, unpublished results). These results are in accordance with previous observations (
Fahrbach et al., 2007;
Garcia, Nikolic, and Piguet, 2008;
Garcia et al., 2005;
Izquierdo-Useros et al., 2007;
Trumpfheller et al., 2003;
Turville et al., 2004), suggesting that HIV trafficking in DCs is not through the conventional endolysosomal pathway. Based on these published results and our present data, we propose that macropinocytosis-mediated HIV endocytosis in DCs, particularly in LPS-induced mDCs, may result in the formation and trafficking of macropinosomes that confine concentrated viral particles. Upon DC-T-cell contact, macropinosome-confined HIV in DCs might recycle to the cell surfaces and transfer to cocultured CD4
+ T cells. Further studies of DC-mediated HIV transmission process using live cell images are carried out to examine this hypothesis.
Using dextran as a marker of endocytosis in DCs, previous studies reported that macropinocytosis in mDCs is significantly decreased relative to that in iDCs (
Frank et al., 2002;
Izquierdo-Useros et al., 2007;
Sallusto et al., 1995). Indeed, we confirmed that uptake of fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled dextran in iDCs was higher than that in mDCs (Wang and Wu, unpublished results). The differing efficiencies of HIV and dextran endocytosis in iDCs and mDCs might result from their distinct interactions. It has been shown that macropinocytosis and multilectin receptor-mediated endocytosis contribute to the uptake of dextran by DCs (
Kato et al., 2000;
Sallusto et al., 1995). DC maturation downregulates the cell-surface expression levels of some C-type lectin receptors, including mannose receptor and DC-SIGN (DC-specific intercellular adhesion molecule-3 grabbing nonintegrin) (
Sallusto et al., 1995;
Wang et al., 2007b). The downregulated receptors in mDCs might contribute to the decreased uptake of dextran relative to iDCs. Thus, it is important to note that dextran cannot be a marker for HIV endocytosis in DCs
Our previous study (
Wang et al., 2007b) and the present results suggest that both cell surface-bound and internalized HIV contribute to DC-mediated viral transmission. Compared with iDC-mediated HIV transmission, viral trafficking in mDCs appears to play a more important role in
trans-infection (
Fahrbach et al., 2007;
Garcia et al., 2005;
Izquierdo-Useros et al., 2007;
Turville et al., 2004;
Wang et al., 2007b). By contrast, Cavrois
et al. suggested that DC-mediated HIV
trans-infection mainly derives from DC surface-bound virions (
Cavrois, Neidleman, and Greene, 2008;
Cavrois et al., 2007). Despite different approaches used in these studies, the dynamic trafficking and recycling of internalized HIV to DC surfaces could also mediate viral transmission, which should be an important consideration in DC-mediated HIV
trans-infection. In addition, Cavrois
et al. proposed that trypsin might be less potent than pronase at removing DC surface-bound HIV, but failed to present any results (
Cavrois et al., 2007). By contrast, our comparison study indicated that pronase treatment (250 μg/ml) reduced iDC- and mDC-mediated HIV transmission by 48% and 24%, respectively (
Wang et al., 2007b). These data were comparable to those of trypsin treatment at the same concentration (
Wang et al., 2007b), suggesting that both trypsin and pronase may strip surface HIV from DCs with similar efficiencies. However, the proteolysis treatment may not completely remove DC surface-bound HIV due to the complex cell surface invaginations of DCs (
Wang et al., 2007b).
Reversible or topical disruption of the cytoskeleton might be considered as a potential approach in the prevention and therapy of HIV infection. Indeed, there are many small molecules that either directly target the actin cytoskeleton, or inhibit actin-binding proteins and other immediate regulators of actin dynamics (
Fenteany and Zhu, 2003). It would be interesting to explore whether some of these cytoskeleton inhibitors can be developed as antiviral agents against HIV transmission
in vivo.
The actin cytoskeleton contributes to T cell activation by forming immunological synapses between antigen-presenting cells and T cells (
Dustin and Cooper, 2000). Interestingly, the immunological synapses appear to share structural similarities with the VS and may play a role in HIV pathogenesis (
Fackler, Alcover, and Schwartz, 2007;
Piguet and Sattentau, 2004). While HIV facilitates cell-to-cell transmission by promoting VS formation, HIV infection impairs the formation of the immunological synapses (
Thoulouze et al., 2006). HIV infection of DCs and T cells may result in a balance between the formation of the VS and the impairment of the immunological synapses, thereby enhancing cell-mediated HIV dissemination and impairing antiviral immune responses. Therefore, the influence of the structure and function of immunological synapses should be also considered in the development of potential anti-HIV interventions by targeting the cytoskeleton.