AIDS is associated with severe muscle wasting, as well as adverse affects on protein, lipid, and carbohydrate metabolism[
108]. Currently, a number of anti-retroviral drugs are available for the treatment of HIV infection. These agents are classified according to their mechanism of action as HIV-1 proteinase inhibitors (PIs) (e.g., lopinavir, indinavir, nelfinavir), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (e.g., nevirapine), and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (e.g., zidovudine). A combination of drug regiments is used as part of the highly active anti-retroviral therapy[
109]. Paradoxically, treatment with HIV drugs also causes metabolic disorders such as changes in protein metabolism, hormones and peripheral lipodystrophy[
78,
110], even though it markedly reduces morbidity and mortality in AIDS patients[
111].
The mechanisms by which HIV drugs affect protein synthesis are not well defined. However, we have shown that a number of these agents impair protein synthesis in animals and C2C12 myocytes[
77,
78,
112,
113]. The mode of action for these agents is less well characterized than the mechanism mediating the effects of EtOH. However, HIV drugs and EtOH have been shown to affect many of the same targets, including AMPK and MAPK signaling, as well as key proteins involved in initiation and elongation processes. Nevertheless, there are notable differences regarding the effects of these drugs. For example, various classes of HIV antiretroviral agents decrease the phosphorylation of 4E-BP1 in muscle and C2C12 myocytes[
113]. In contrast, the HIV PI indinavir suppresses 4E-BP1 and mTOR phosphorylation in animals, but it has no effect on these parameters in C2C12 myocytes[
77,
78]. Likewise, the PI lopinavir does not alter the phosphorylation of mTOR in meningioma cells[
114]. Indinavir disrupts the formation of the active eIF4E-eIF4G initiation complex and thus diminishes the binding of mRNA with the ribosome. Indinavir also reduces the phosphorylation of S6K1 and its downstream target rpS6 in myocytes. Hence, changes in the phosphorylation state of proteins involved in the initiation process may, at least in part, account for the observed decrease in protein synthesis. Because the adverse effects of indinavir on protein synthesis are accompanied by a decline in MEK/ERK/p90
RSK and p38 MAPK/Mnk1 signaling, it is possible that these pathways mediate the protein metabolic effects of this drug[
69,
77].
Previously, we reported that treatment of C2C12 myocytes with indinavir or lopinavir increases phosphorylation of eEF2 at T56[
69,
112] (Figure ). This was correlated with an enhanced phosphorylation of eEF2K at S366. In addition, there is an increased activity of this protein, as demonstrated using an
in vitro assay with purified eEF2 as the substrate. The most probable explanation for increased eEF2K activity is
via the action of AMPK. Indeed, lopinavir increases the phosphorylation of AMPK at T172. In addition, there is increased
in vitro kinase activity of AMPK, as determined by its ability to directly phosphorylate the purified eEF2K substrate[
112]. Finally, AMPK can directly regulate eEF2 phosphorylation in response to lopinavir, with this being independent of the action of eEF2K.
In summary, the effects of lopinavir on eEF2 phosphorylation appear to be mediated via both the direct and indirect action of AMPK. The mTORC1 pathway may play some role in the process, but at present, this has not been examined. On the other hand, the effects of EtOH on eEF2 are regulated through both mTORC1 and AMPK signaling.