RETRACTED: PERK Is Critical for Alphavirus Nonstructural Protein Translation

Abstract

Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that causes encephalitis. Previous work indicated that VEEV infection induced early growth response 1 (EGR1) expression, leading to cell death via the protein kinase R (PKR)-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway. Loss of PERK prevented EGR1 induction and decreased VEEV-induced death. The results presented within show that loss of PERK in human primary astrocytes dramatically reduced VEEV and eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) infectious titers by 4–5 log₁₀. Loss of PERK also suppressed VEEV replication in primary human pericytes and human umbilical vein endothelial cells, but it had no impact on VEEV replication in transformed U87MG and 293T cells. A significant reduction in VEEV RNA levels was observed as early as 3 h post-infection, but viral entry assays indicated that the loss of PERK minimally impacted VEEV entry. In contrast, the loss of PERK resulted in a dramatic reduction in viral nonstructural protein translation and negative-strand viral RNA production. The loss of PERK also reduced the production of Rift Valley fever virus and Zika virus infectious titers. These data indicate that PERK is an essential factor for the translation of alphavirus nonstructural proteins and impacts multiple RNA viruses, making it an exciting target for antiviral development.

1. Introduction

Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that causes significant disease in humans and equines, affecting the central nervous system (CNS), which often results in neuropathology. In humans, VEEV causes febrile illness characterized by fever, malaise, and vomiting. Infection can progress to the CNS, causing neurological symptoms, including confusion, ataxia, and seizures. Encephalitis develops in approximately 4% of cases with an overall mortality of 1–2% [1,2,3]. At present, there are no FDA-approved therapeutics or vaccines available for the treatment and prevention of VEEV-induced disease in humans. Thus, it is imperative to understand host–pathogen interactions that could be exploited as novel targets for therapeutics.

Transcriptomic studies are a useful method for the global identification of altered host response pathways. Previous RNAseq studies from our lab identified factors in the unfolded protein response (UPR) and the interferon pathway as differentially expressed following VEEV infection in U87MG astrocytoma cells [4]. Specifically, the protein kinase R-like endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated. Moreover, PERK was at least partially responsible for the induction of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1), which contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis [4,5].

In its inactive state, PERK is bound to the ER chaperone and signaling regulator, immunoglobulin-binding protein (BiP)/glucose regulated protein 78 kDa (GRP78). Upon stress, PERK activation is initiated by dissociation of BiP/GRP78 from its luminal domain; then, it enables the oligomerization of PERK via its N-terminal luminal domain followed by autophosphorylation of the C-terminal cytoplasmic kinase domain [6]. Phosphorylated PERK then phosphorylates the eukaryotic initiation factor 2 subunit α (eIF2α) at the Ser51 residue, attenuating global translation and reducing the ER load [7]. However, due to the presence of upstream open reading frames (uORFs), which facilitate translation re-initiation under stress conditions, stress response proteins such as activating translated factor 4 (ATF4) are still capable of translation in order to maintain the ER homeostatic balance [8].

Multiple viruses are capable of activating the PERK pathway upon viral infection likely due to increased demands on the ER for production of viral proteins [9,10,11]. Infection with herpes simplex virus-1 activates PERK, where eIF2α is known to remain unphosphorylated [12]. Japanese encephalitis virus activates PERK signaling, inducing apoptosis and encephalitis [13]. Similarly, a cytopathic strain of bovine viral diarrhea virus, a flavivirus, has been shown to activate the PERK pathway and stimulate the phosphorylation of eIF2α, leading to cellular apoptosis [14]. Our previous work suggested that not only did loss of PERK prevent EGR1 activation and VEEV-induced apoptosis, but it also dramatically reduced VEEV viral RNA levels [5]. These results were unexpected, given that PERK activation leads to translational suppression and is connected to innate immune signaling through sensing ER stress triggered by viral protein production [9,15]. In an effort to further determine the role of PERK during VEEV infection, the impacts of siRNA-mediated knockdown of PERK during various aspects of the alphavirus life cycle were investigated. We found that loss of PERK had the most significant impact on alphavirus nonstructural protein translation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cell Culture

Primary human astrocytes and Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) were obtained from Lonza (Basel, Switzerland) and maintained in Astrocyte growth medium (AGM) BulletKit (CC-3187 and CC-4123) and Endothelial cell growth medium (EGM)-2 BulletKit (CC-3156 and CC-4176), respectively. Human brain microvascular pericytes were obtained from Sciencell (Carlsbad, CA, USA) and maintained in Pericyte medium (PM) supplemented with 2% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 1% PM growth supplement, and 1% of penicillin/streptomycin solution. Vero (ATCC CCL-81), the human glioblastoma cell line, U87MG (ATCC HTB-14), and 293T (ATCC CRL-3216) cells were obtained from ATCC (Manassas, VA, USA) and maintained in Dulbecco’s modified minimum essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 1% l-glutamine, and 1% penicillin/streptomycin. All cells were maintained at 37 °C with 5% CO₂.

2.2. Viruses and Infections

VEEV TC-83, VEEV Trinidad Donkey (TrD) (epidemic subtype I/AB/C), eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) FL93-939, VEEV nsP3-nLuc, and EEEV nsP3-nLuc viral stocks were produced by electroporation of Vero cells with in vitro-transcribed viral RNA generated from molecular clones as previously described [16]. VEEV nsP3-nLuc, EEEV FL93-939, and EEEV nsP3-nLuc plasmids were kindly provided by William Klimstra of the University of Pittsburgh [17]. Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) MP-12 was rescued using a reverse genetics system as previously described [18]. Zika virus (ZIKV) MR766 was obtained from BEI Resources (Manassas, VA, USA), catalog number NR-50065. Experiments with VEEV TC-83, RVFV MP-12, and ZIKV infections were performed under BSL-2 conditions, while all others were performed under BSL-3 conditions. Work involving select agents was conducted at George Mason University’s Biomedical Research Laboratory or Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University’s Infectious Disease Unit, both of which are registered with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Work was performed in accordance with the federal select agent regulations.

For viral infections, cells were plated in 12-well (2.5 × 10⁵ cells/well) or 24-well (1.4 × 10⁵ cells/well) plates and incubated overnight. The next day, cells were infected at the specified multiplicity of infection (MOI). Cells were infected for 1 h at 37 °C and rocked every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. Then, the cells were washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times post-infection for further analysis. To determine viral titers, astrocytes were seeded in a 96-well plate at 15,000 cells per well and allowed to incubate overnight at 37 °C and 5% CO₂. Treatments and infections were performed as described above. Supernatants were collected at the indicated time points and stored at −80 °C until use. Viral titers were determined by crystal violet plaque assay using Vero cells as previously described [19].

2.3. RNA Isolation and Quantitative RT-PCR

Total RNA extracted from mock-infected or VEEV TC-83-infected astrocytes was isolated using the RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) was performed using the StepOnePlus™ Real-Time PCR System (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA USA). TaqMan Gene Expression Assays were used for interferon (IFN)-β (Hs0107758_s1) or 18S (Hs99999901_s1). Fold changes were calculated relative to 18S ribosomal RNA and normalized to mock samples using the ΔΔCt method. RT-qPCR assays to detect viral RNA in astrocytes were performed using Invitrogen’s RNA UltraSense™ One-Step Quantitative RT-PCR System using Integrated DNA Technologies primer pairs (forward primer, 5′-TCTGACAAGACGTTCCCAATCA-3′; reverse primer, 5′-GAATAACTTCCCTCCGACCACA-3′) and TaqMan probe (5′-6-carboxyfluorescein-TGTTGGAAGGGAAGATAAACGGCTACGC-6-carboxy-N,N,N′,N′-tetramethylrhodamine-3′) for nucleotides 7931 to 8005 of VEEV TC-83 as described previously [20]. The absolute quantification was done using StepOne software v2.3 based on the threshold cycle relative to the standard curve. The standard curve was determined using serial dilutions of VEEV TC-83 RNA at known concentrations.

Negative sense viral RNA quantitation was performed as described in [21] using the following primers: Reverse Transcription: T7-F-Neg, 5′-GCGTAATACGACTCACTATATCCGTCAGCTCTCTCGCAGGTA-3′, Forward primer: T7, 5′-GCGTAATACGACTCACTATA-3′, Reverse primer R-Ros, 5′-ACAGGTACTAGGTTTATGCG-3′.

2.4. Western Blot Analyses

Protein lysates were collected using Blue Lysis Buffer and analyzed by Western blot as previously described [22]. The recipe for Blue Lysis Buffer consists of 25 mL 2x Novex Tris-Glycine Sample Loading Buffer SDS (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA USA, Cat# LC2676), 20 mL T-PER Tissue Protein Extraction Reagent (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA USA, Cat# 78510), 200 µL 0.5 M EDTA pH 8.0, 2–3 complete Protease Cocktail tablets for 50 mL, 80 µL 0.1 M Na₃VO₄, 400 µL 0.1 M NaF, 1.3 mL 1 M dithiothreitol. Briefly, primary antibodies against capsid of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, TC-83 (Subtype IA/B) Capsid (antiserum, Goat) (BEI resources, NR-9403), VEEV GP (antiserum, Goat), VEEV nsP2 (Kerafast, Boston, MA, USA, Cat# 8A4B3), PERK (C33E10) (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA, Cat# 3192S), or horse radish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated β-actin antibody (Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA, Cat# ab49900) were diluted in 3% milk solution per the manufacturer’s recommended dilutions followed by the addition of the appropriate secondary antibody either anti-rabbit HRP-conjugated (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA, Cat# 7074), or anti-goat HRP-conjugated antibody. PDVF membranes were imaged on a Chemidoc XRS molecular imager (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) using the SuperSignal West Femto Maximum Sensitivity Substrate kit (ThermoFisher, Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA, Cat# 34095).

2.5. Transfections

Astrocytes seeded at 2.5 × 10⁵ cells per well in a 12-well plate or 1.4 × 10⁵ cells/well in a 24-well plate were transfected with 100 nM SignalSilence^® PERK siRNA I (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA, Cat# 9024S), or AllStar negative-control small interfering RNA (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA, Cat# 1027280), using 1.2 μL of the DharmaFECT 1 transfection reagent (Dharmacon, Lafayette, CO, USA, Cat# T-2001-02). At 48 h post-transfection, cells were infected with VEEV TC-83 (MOI 5), VEEV TrD (MOI 5), or EEEV (MOI 5) for 1 h. After infection, the medium was replaced with fresh medium. At 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, or 36 hpi, supernatants or lysates were collected for downstream analysis. For polyinosinic–polycytidylic potassium salt [poly(I:C)] (Tocris, Minneapolis, MN, USA, Cat# 4287) transfection, poly(I:C) was dissolved in water and 4 μg/mL dsRNA was coupled with 2 μL/well lipofectamine 2000 (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA USA, Cat# 11668030). Complexed poly(I:C) was transfected into astrocytes that were previously transfected with siNeg or siPERK. SiNeg astrocytes treated with lipofectamine 2000 only were used as a control. At 6 h post treatment, lysates were collected for downstream analysis.

2.6. Cell Viability Assays

Astrocytes were cultured as described above in 96-well white walled plates (Corning, Corning, NY, USA, Cat# 3903) and transfected with siRNAs followed by mock infection or VEEV TC-83 infection at a MOI of 5. At 48 hpi, ATP production was measured as an indication of cell viability using the CellTiter-Glo assay (Promega, Madison, WI, USA, Cat# G7570).

2.7. Nano-Luciferase Assay

VEEV and eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) nsP3-nLuc viruses were used to infect siRNA-transfected astrocytes at a MOI of 5. At 18 hpi, luminescence was measured with Promega’s Nano-Glo Luciferase Assay system (Promega, Madison, WI, USA, N1110). Assays were performed in white-walled, 96-well plates seeded with 15,000–20,000 cells per well following the manufacturer’s protocol.

2.8. Translation Reporter Assay

VEEV firefly luciferase-expressing translation reporter plasmids were kindly provided by Dr. Klimstra and are described elsewhere [23]. Briefly, VEEV translation reporter encodes firefly luciferase gene (fLuc) fused in frame with 5′, 3′ UTR, and poly (A) tail from VEEV. The reporter RNA was in vitro transcribed as described previously [23]. Astrocytes that were previously transfected with siNeg or siPERK as described above were electroporated with 3 µg of the in vitro synthesized VEEV reporter RNA. Electroporated cells were equally divided between 3 wells in 6-well plates and incubated at 37 °C with 5% CO₂. At 2 h post electroporation, cells were washed with PBS and lysed in passive lysis buffer. The intensity of the luminescence was measured by the Dual Luciferase Reporter Assay (Promega, Madison, WI, USA, Cat# E1910) following manufacturer’s instructions. Firefly relative light units (RLU) for each sample were normalized to total protein concentration measured by Bradford assay kit (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA USA, Cat# 23246), and values were calculated as RLU/µg of protein. Then, siNeg samples were set to a fold change value of 1, and siPERK samples fold change values were determined relative to siNeg.

2.9. Statistics

Statistical analyses were calculated using a two-way ANOVA test followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test using Graphpad’s prism or two-tailed Student’s t-test using GraphPadPrism v.8.0.2 software. All graphs contain the mean and standard deviations with an n  =  3 unless otherwise mentioned.

3. Results

3.1. Silencing PERK Dramatically Decreases VEEV Replication in Primary Astrocytes but Not in Transformed U87MG Cells

Our previous work showed that siRNA-mediated depletion of PERK in human primary astrocytes resulted in a ≈ 5-log₁₀ reduction of VEEV RNA [5]. Here, these results were extended to determine the impact of PERK on VEEV viral titers and viral protein levels in primary human astrocytes as well as U87MG astrocytoma cells. Astrocytes were selected for this analysis given the neurotrophic nature of VEEV and their ability to support VEEV replication in both in vitro and in vivo models [4,24,25,26]. Cells were transfected with siRNA targeting PERK (siPERK) or a negative control siRNA (siNeg) for 48 h and then infected with VEEV (MOI 5). Viral supernatants were collected and viral titers were determined via plaque assay. Western blot analysis was performed to confirm PERK knockdown and viral protein expression. Viral titers were dramatically reduced in siPERK transfected and VEEV-infected primary astrocytes by over 5-log₁₀ (p < 0.0001) (Figure 1A), while there was no significant difference in viral titers between siNeg and siPERK transfected U87MG astrocytoma cells (Figure 2A). PERK protein was significantly reduced by over 8-fold for both astrocytes and U87MG cells (p < 0.001) (Figure 1B,C and Figure 2B,C). Similarly, a dramatic decrease in VEEV nonstructural protein 2 (nsP2), capsid and GP proteins was observed (over 9-fold reduction for each viral proteins) in siPERK transfected and VEEV-infected primary astrocytes (Figure 1B,D), whereas loss of PERK showed no significant difference in viral protein expression in U87MG cells (Figure 2B,D).

Since blocking PERK signaling had a dramatic decrease in viral titers as well as viral protein expression, we assessed cell viability to ensure that loss of PERK was not negatively impacting cell growth. Only 33% of cells were viable in VEEV-infected siNeg astrocytes, while siPERK-transfected astrocytes infected with VEEV had cell viability levels comparable to mock-infected cells (Figure 1E). Likewise, the loss of PERK did not impact mock-infected cell viability. These data agree with our published studies [5] and indicate that a reduction of PERK expression rescues astrocytes from VEEV-induced cell death. They also indicate that the differences in VEEV levels observed with siPERK transfections are not due to a decrease in cell viability.

As VEEV TC-83 replication was significantly impacted by the loss of PERK signaling in primary astrocytes, knockdown of PERK was further tested for its effect on VEEV TrD (epidemic subtype I AB/C) and EEEV FL93-939 replication. VEEV TrD (Figure 1F) and EEEV FL93-939 (Figure 1G) replication were both significantly reduced by over 4 log₁₀ following loss of PERK, indicating that silencing PERK significantly impacts viral replication in alphaviruses.

3.2. Loss of PERK Reduces Viral Titers in Pericytes and Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) but Not Transformed 293T Cells

To determine if the loss of PERK impacts VEEV replication in other cell types, siRNA-mediated knockdown of PERK was performed in human primary pericytes, HUVECs, and transformed human kidney epithelial 293T cells. These cells were selected based on pericytes and endothelial cells being major components of the blood–brain barrier and the ability of VEEV to infect pericytes and endothelial cells in vitro [27,28,29]. 293T cells were selected because they are a commonly used transformed cell line and are susceptible to VEEV infection. At 48 h post transfection, lysates were collected for Western blot analysis. PERK protein was significantly reduced in cells transfected with siPERK by over 6-fold for both HUVECs (p < 0.01) and pericytes (p < 0.05) indicating successful knockdown of PERK (Figure 3A,B). VEEV replication was reduced by over 6 log₁₀ in HUVECs (p < 0.01) and nearly 4 log₁₀ in pericytes (p < 0.02) with siPERK transfection (Figure 3C). Transfection of 293T cells with siPERK resulted in undetectable levels of PERK (Figure 2E). However, there was no impact on VEEV replication in 293T cells (Figure 2F). These results coupled with the data presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 indicate that loss of PERK signaling impacts VEEV replication in multiple human primary cell types but not in transformed human cell lines.

3.3. The Impact of PERK on VEEV Replication Is an Early Event

We performed a time course analysis to begin to elucidate the viral life cycle event(s) impacted by PERK. Following siPERK or siNeg transfection, astrocytes were infected with VEEV at a MOI of 5, and viral RNA and infectious viral titer levels were determined at 3, 6, 9, or 12 hpi. The viral titers increased over time in siNeg-transfected and VEEV TC-83-infected astrocytes as expected, while in siPERK-transfected and VEEV-infected cells, viral titers did not increase over time (Figure 4A). Supernatants collected from siPERK-transfected cells contained 10⁴ PFU/mL at 3 hpi, which is reflective of residual virus, as alphavirus viral particle release is typically not detected until 4–6 hpi [30,31]. There was a significant and dramatic reduction of viral titers at 6, 9, or 12 hpi in siPERK-transfected cells when compared to siNeg transfection, suggesting that in the absence of PERK, infectious virus is unable to be produced. Similarly, RT-qPCR data showed a significant and dramatic decrease in viral RNA across all time points (Figure 4B). A small increase in viral RNA in siPERK-transfected astrocytes was observed over time; however, there was no significant difference in viral RNA levels at 3 hpi vs. 12 hpi. These results suggest that a loss of PERK impacts VEEV replication as early as 3 hpi and thus affects an early event in the viral infectious cycle.

3.4. Loss of PERK Does Not Result in Elevation of IFN-β Production

Type1 IFN is induced by host cells as a first line of defense against viral infections. We next sought to determine if IFN signaling during early viral infection is impacting viral replication in PERK knockdown cells. Since type I IFNs are readily induced in response to viral infection, this initial wave of IFN signaling might serve as an “alarm” signal against viral translation [32]. Therefore, siNeg or siPERK-transfected astrocytes were mock- or VEEV-infected and total RNA was extracted at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 hpi. siNeg transfected and VEEV-infected cells induced IFN-β expression beginning at 6 hpi and with a nearly 90-fold change observed at 18 hpi (Figure 5A). In contrast, siPERK-transfected and VEEV-infected cells had IFN-β levels comparable to mock-infected cells at all timepoints, indicating that the induction of IFN-β was not responsible for the dramatic block in VEEV replication observed.

Type 1 IFN is induced by dsRNA synthesized by most viruses during their replication cycle. Since dsRNA is also synthesized by VEEV during its replication cycle, we next performed treatment of siRNA transfected cells with poly(I:C) complexed with Lipofectamine to determine if IFN is capable of being induced in siPERK-transfected astrocytes. Our results indicated that with loss of PERK signaling, the cells are still able to respond to the dsRNA and induce IFN-β (Figure 5B, compare siNeg control to siPERK + poly(I:C)). However, the IFN-β induction was over 70-fold higher in siNeg + poly(I:C) transfected astrocytes compared to those transfected with siPERK + poly(I:C) transfected cells. The reduction in IFN-β gene expression in siPERK-transfected and poly(I:C) treated astrocytes may be due to the loss of activation of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kB), which correlates with the reduced IFN-β induction observed, compared to siNeg astrocytes [33,34]. These results indicate that cells transfected with siPERK are capable of producing IFN in response to dsRNA, but that during VEEV infection, loss of PERK does not result in IFN-β production.

3.5. Loss of PERK Minimally Impacts VEEV Entry, but Inhibits Nonstructural Protein Translation and Negative Strand Viral RNA Production

Since the siRNA-mediated knockdown against PERK impacted VEEV replication as early as 3 hpi, we explored the impact of PERK on early events including entry, nonstructural protein translation, and negative stranded viral RNA production. VEEV enters host cells via receptor-mediated endocytosis in clathrin-coated vesicles [35,36]. Viral entry assays were performed as previously described [37,38] to determine the impact of PERK on viral entry. Briefly, siRNA-transfected cells were allowed to remain at 4 °C for 1 h, followed by VEEV infection at 4 °C to allow receptor binding without internalization of the virus so that the infection is synchronized. Then, the temperature was switched to 37 °C and viral RNA extract at 1 hpi to determine the amount of viral RNA present within the cells. The RT-qPCR analysis showed that VEEV entry was only minimally impacted with the loss of PERK (Figure 6A), suggesting that this is not the major mechanism by with PERK facilitates VEEV replication.

Alphaviruses undergo translation immediately after uncoating, with nsP1-4 being translated from the incoming viral RNA [39]. To determine if loss of PERK signaling is impacting nonstructural protein viral translation, we next performed infection of siNeg or siPERK-transfected astrocytes with reporter viruses; VEEV nsP3-nLuc or EEEV nsP3-nLuc. The nsP3-nLuc reporter viruses were constructed with the nLuc gene fused in frame with nsP3 [17]. When infected, the reporter viruses are able to produce nsP3 fusion protein as an indicator of translation from the incoming genome. The nsP3–nLuc viruses expressed significantly diminished luminescence in siPERK-transfected astrocytes. The siNeg-transfected astrocytes had ≈3 log₁₀ increase in luminescence over the siPERK-transfected cells (Figure 6B). The EEEV-nsP3-nLuc showed similar results (Figure 6C). Two caveats with this experiment should be noted. The first is that luminescence was determined at 18 hpi, which is a late point after infection. The second is that viral entry may be contributing to the observed differences. To overcome these limitations and to further confirm the impact of PERK on viral translation, a VEEV viral translational reporter was used. The reporter RNA mimics initial translation of an incoming viral genome and is unable to replicate. The VEEV translational RNA reporter has a cap and a poly-adenylated tail in which the fLuc gene fused with truncated nsP1 is flanked with 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) as described [23]. Electroporation of the reporter RNA bypasses the entry and fusion steps so that RNAs gets directly delivered into the cytoplasm. Astrocytes were transfected with siNeg or siPERK for 48 h hours followed by electroporation with the VEEV translation reporter RNA. The fLuc activity in siPERK transfected astrocytes was significantly lower compared to the siNeg transfected astrocytes (>100-fold reduction) (Figure 6D). These results agree with data shown in Figure 1B where nsP2 protein levels were undetectable in siPERK-transfected astrocytes.

Alphaviruses nsP1-4 are needed for viral genomic replication, including negative sense viral RNA production. Therefore, the impact of PERK on VEEV negative strand RNA levels was determined as another indicator of loss of nsP1-4 production. Negative strand viral RNA levels were reduced by 4 log₁₀ in siPERK-transfected astrocytes as compared to siNeg-transfected astrocytes (Figure 6E). Together, these data indicate that PERK is needed for alphavirus nonstructural protein translation and negative strand viral RNA production.

3.6. Loss of PERK Results in the Reduction of RVFV and ZIKV Infectious Titers

Given the significant impact of PERK on alphavirus replication, the importance of PERK for additional viruses was assessed. RVFV, genus Phlebovirus, was selected as a representative negative sense RNA virus. ZIKV was selected as a representative Flavivirus. Flaviviruses are positive sense RNA viruses with replication strategies similar to alphaviruses. These viruses were also selected due to their ability to replicate in astrocytes [40,41]. Human primary astrocytes transfected with siPERK displayed a 2 log₁₀ decrease in RVFV titers at 24 hpi and a 3 log₁₀ decrease at 48 hpi (Figure 7A). Loss of PERK also resulted in a nearly 2 log₁₀ reduction in ZIKV infectious viral titers at 48 hpi (Figure 7B), although this change was not quite statistically significant (p-value = 0.0738). These results indicate that PERK is important for the production of infectious viral particles for multiple viruses in human primary astrocytes.

4. Discussion

With progressive viral replication, there is an accumulation of large amounts of viral glycoproteins in the ER lumen leading to ER stress, which ultimately activates the UPR pathway [10,42]. The UPR pathway, as part of the cellular stress response, is activated to restore ER homeostasis following viral infection. Among the three signaling pathways, namely PERK, IRE1, and ATF6 that are activated by UPR, the PERK arm of the UPR is the key pathway involved in cellular translation regulation [43]. In our previous study, we found that the PERK arm of the UPR was activated late after VEEV infection (16 hpi) [4]. This induction corresponded to an increased expression of EGR1, culminating in cell death [4]. Inhibition of PERK activity or loss of PERK reduced EGR1 mRNA transcription and subsequent cell death in VEEV-infected cells [4,5]. Surprisingly, the loss of PERK significantly decreased VEEV viral RNA levels, but the loss of EGR1 has marginal impacts on VEEV replication [4,5]. These data suggested that PERK has a role outside of its regulation of EGR1 during VEEV infection.

Here, we extended these findings and found that PERK is critical for alphavirus replication: it is required for nonstructural protein translation. During the alphavirus replication cycle, as the virus enters cells via receptor-mediated endocytosis, the nsPs are translated first, and they are essential for the subsequent synthesis of genomic, negative strand, and sub-genomic viral RNAs along with the translation of structural proteins [21]. Our data clearly shows that PERK impacts an early event during viral infection. In support of this, no IFN-β transcripts were detected in VEEV-infected cells transfected with PERK siRNA, suggesting that dsRNA (an alphavirus replication intermediate) was not being produced. This suggests that PERK impacts viral RNA replication or an earlier event. However, the loss of PERK only modestly impacted viral entry, indicating that PERK acts after viral entry. Loss of PERK blocked nsP3-luc reporter virus replication and inhibited the production of luciferase from a VEEV translational reporter suggests PERK’s activity is directed more so on the translation of nonstructural proteins, which are the first viral proteins synthesized upon infection. Consistent with our data, blocking nonstructural protein translation prevents all subsequent downstream viral steps of the viral infectious process, including viral negative and genomic RNA production, structural protein synthesis, and the production of infectious viral particles. Interestingly, this finding contrasts with previous studies, which show that PERK activation occurs later as the viral replication advances as shown by infection with cytomegalovirus, which has a dsDNA genome [44].

The most well-studied role of PERK is the phosphorylation of eIF2α at Ser51, which results in suppression of translation initiation [45]. However, eIF2α is also phosphorylated by protein kinase R (PKR), which senses double-stranded RNA produced during RNA virus infections, including alphaviruses [46]. Alphavirus-infected cells display PKR activation and subsequent eIF2α phosphorylation, but translation of the structural proteins from the subgenomic RNA is resistant to eIF2α inhibition [36,47]. The ability of alphaviruses to overcome eIF2α inhibition has been mapped to a stable RNA hairpin loop in the 26S promoter of the subgenomic mRNA, which enables the ribosome to stall on the correct AUG [46]. Their resistance to eIF2α inhibition could also be linked to alphaviruses not requiring eIF4G for translation [48]. Little is known regarding the regulation of alphavirus nonstructural protein translation, which uses the incoming viral RNA as a template; however, translation from the 5′UTR is thought to occur similar to host mRNA and is less efficient than translation initiated from the subgenomic RNA [48,49].

Our data showing that PERK is required for alphavirus nonstructural protein translation appears to be paradoxical when put in the context of the traditional role of PERK in suppressing translation. However, it is possible that the importance of PERK for alphavirus translation lies outside of its regulation of eIF2α. PERK is enriched at the mitochondrial-associated ER membranes and facilitates apoptotic communication between the ER and mitochondria, which is independent of its kinase activity [50]. In addition, recent research has elucidated a role for PERK in regulating actin–cytoskeleton dynamics and facilitating plasma membrane (PM) and ER contact sites [51]. PERK was found to interact with filamin A, which is an actin crosslinking protein. PERK dimerization occurred in response to elevated Ca²⁺ levels, independent of UPR activation, enhancing PERK and filamin A interaction, and enabling the PM–ER contact sites [51]. In contrast, cells without PERK display cortical actin buildup, preventing ER and PM contact sites. This model is intriguing to consider in relation to alphavirus translation, as actin dynamics have been linked to the regulation of translation [52,53,54]. Future studies will investigate the role of actin dynamics in regulating PERK-dependent alphavirus nonstructural protein translation.

The effect of PERK knockdown was pronounced in primary cells, but it did not impact VEEV replication in transformed U87MG and 293T cells. U87MG cells have a deletion of type 1 IFN genes [55]. Multiple studies have shown that PERK interacts with IFN signaling potentially acting as a cytosolic pattern recognition receptor and thereby stimulating IFN gene expression (reviewed in [9]). Conversely, viruses may utilize PERK to facilitate replication. Vesicular stomatitis virus and hepatitis C virus infection stimulated PERK, resulting in a degradation of IFNAR1 and suppression of IFN signaling [56]. Likewise, the loss of PERK in foot-and-mouth disease virus-infected cells resulted in decreased viral replication with a corresponding increase in the IFN antiviral response [57]. However, an increase in IFNβ gene expression was not detected in VEEV-infected cells lacking PERK (Figure 5A), suggesting that the suppression of IFN antiviral signaling is not a significant mechanism by which PERK contributes to alphavirus replication. It is possible that PERK knockdown upregulates an IFN-independent antiviral state that suppresses translation of the incoming alphavirus genome. Future studies are needed to determine if the impact of PERK knockout on translation is through a direct or indirect mechanism.

Loss of PERK not only impacted VEEV and EEEV alphaviruses but also reduced infectious titers of the Phlebovirus RVFV and the Flavivirus ZIKV. The ability of PERK to facilitate the production of both positive and negative-sense RNA viruses is an interesting observation given the diverse replication processes employed by these viruses. For example, flaviviruses contain a positive-sense genomic RNA with a 5′ cap. Upon viral entry, viral translation occurs through a canonical cap-dependent process [58], similar to alphaviruses. In contrast, RVFV being a negative sense RNA virus requires the transcription of its genetic material prior to translation occurring. In addition, RVFV mRNAs acquire their 5′ caps through cap-snatching from cellular mRNAs [59]. The divergent processes used by these viruses suggest that PERK is impacting different stages of viral production in alphaviruses, flaviviruses, and phleboviruses. The importance of PERK for PM–ER contact sites (as discussed above) could significantly impact all of these viruses. Additional studies are required to determine the mechanism by which PERK impacts ZIKV and RVFV production.

Collectively, our work demonstrates a novel role of PERK in regulating alphavirus nonstructural protein translation. These data coupled with our earlier studies indicate that PERK has a dual-function following alphavirus infection, playing a critical role in controlling both alphavirus replication and viral-induced cell death. PERK is essential for viral nonstructural protein translation at the initial stages of infection. However, during the late stages of infection, activation of PERK leads to cell death. These results indicate that PERK is a promising therapeutic target that could both block viral replication and prevent viral induced cell death.