Next Article in Journal
Chikungunya Virus’ High Genomic Plasticity Enables Rapid Adaptation to Restrictive A549 Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Tropism of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5 Viruses from the 2020/2021 Epizootic in Wild Ducks and Geese
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Viruses
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/v14020281
viruses-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Viral Proteins with PxxP and PY Motifs May Play a Role in Multiple Sclerosis

by
Keng-Shuo Pi
1,
Yurou Sang
1,2 and
Suzana K. Straus
1,*
1
Department of Chemistry, University of British Columbia, 2036 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada
2
Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Viruses 2022, 14(2), 281; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14020281
Submission received: 15 December 2021 / Revised: 19 January 2022 / Accepted: 26 January 2022 / Published: 28 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Human Virology and Viral Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a debilitating disease that arises from immune system attacks to the protective myelin sheath that covers nerve fibers and ensures optimal communication between brain and body. Although the cause of MS is unknown, a number of factors, which include viruses, have been identified as increasing the risk of displaying MS symptoms. Specifically, the ubiquitous and highly prevalent Epstein–Barr virus, human herpesvirus 6, cytomegalovirus, varicella–zoster virus, and other viruses have been identified as potential triggering agents. In this review, we examine the specific role of proline-rich proteins encoded by these viruses and their potential role in MS at a molecular level.

1. Multiple Sclerosis

MS is an autoimmune disease in the central nervous system (CNS) [1]. The disease typically arises in young adults, with most common symptoms consisting of dysesthesia, fatigue, spasticity, numbness, walking difficulties, weakness, and cognitive changes. The disease occurs in four different stages. Most MS patients start with a course of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), during which inflammation in the CNS is temporary. More than 80–90% of patients experience RRMS with neurological issues separated by complete or incomplete remission [2,3]. RRMS can then lead to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). This is often accompanied by gradual neurologic deterioration not associated with acute attacks [4]. Finally, some patients experience primary-progressive MS (PPMS), where the disease progresses slowly and steadily, without any remission periods or progressive-relapsing MS (PRMS), which is like PPMS but with periods of relapse in between. Since 2013, however, clinical course descriptors of MS do not include PRMS [5,6,7]. A useful graphic which explains the various stages of MS can be found in the excellent review of Tarlinton et al. [8]. Although there have been immense strides made in the last decade to slow some of the negative effects of MS [9,10], there is still no cure.
The mechanism that gives rise to MS is generally thought to involve gradual demyelination and loss of oligodendrocytes due to an autoimmune response generated against self-antigens [11,12]. Loss of functional oligodendrocytes, which are responsible for effective signal transduction between neurons through maintaining healthy myelin sheath, result in clinical presentations of plaques or lesions in the optic nerve, brain stem, basal ganglia, and spinal cord white matter [13]. The causes that lead to demyelination and loss of oligodendrocytes are not fully understood, but generally the following risk factors have been identified [14,15,16,17]: (i) immune system; (ii) genetics; (iii) environment; and (iv) infection. In the case of the immune system, B-cells and T-cells have been identified to play a role. Activated B-cells travel to the CNS, giving rise to antibodies and other proteins that contribute to CNS damage [3]. Indeed, one of the earliest evidence that antibodies play a role in MS was the presence of immunoglobulins (IgG) in cerebrospinal fluid in a high proportion of MS patients. The source of these IgGs was confirmed to be clonal B-cells by transcriptomic studies [18]; however, there is no evidence for an MS-specific autoantibody, suggesting that the role of B-cells in neuroinflammation is not primarily due to antibody production [3]. This is further supported by the finding that treatments for MS patients targeting B-cells that do not produce antibodies show promise [19,20]. Many more studies have shown the implication of T-cells in MS: demyelination occurs as a result of an autoimmune attack by autoreactive T-cells [14,21,22,23]. Autoantigens, i.e., normal constituents of neuronal cells that become the target of an immune response include myelin basic protein (MBP) and proteolipid protein (PLP), as well as the less prevalent minor components of myelin sheaths, namely myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) and myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) [24]. Genetic factors linked to MS consist of a combination of genes that are involved in immune system regulation. Initial studies pointed to the involvement of HLA alleles [25,26], but more recent work identified 200 loci linked to susceptibility to MS away from the HLA region [27,28,29]. Moreover, a number of studies suggest that genetic factors alone are insufficient and often require additional risk factors such as environmental ones, such as, e.g., an unhealthy gut microbiome [30]. Additional environmental factors include low vitamin D or low sun exposure, air pollution and exposure to organic solvents. These risk factors are moderate to weak and the connection to MS onset and progression is extremely complex and varies between population groups [31]. Finally, it has been suggested that one or more viruses may be possible triggers of MS [8,21,22,32]. This will be presented in more detail in the following section.
Overall, because the etiology of MS remains largely unknown and because it is likely to be a multifactorial disease, the factors listed above could each play a role and affect immune system development and response in individuals, resulting in MS onset and disease progression. The inadequate understanding of the pathogenesis of MS makes it difficult to identify potential target molecules needed to design new therapeutic drugs [33]. Hence, a better, i.e., molecular level, understanding of what some of the factors implicated in MS might be could provide new treatment avenues.

2. Viral Risk Factors

A number of viruses have been identified as risk factors for MS or as potential triggers. These include the human herpes viruses Epstein–Barr virus (EBV), human herpes virus-6 (HHV-6), varicella zoster virus (VZV) [34,35], and cytomegalovirus (CMV), as well as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) [8]. In some cases, herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) [36] and the non-herpes virus human polyomavirus 2 or JC virus (JCV) have also been implicated [8]. Many of these viruses are ubiquitous and latent. In the following subsections, these viruses will be discussed individually.

2.1. Epstein–Barr Virus (EBV)

EBV, the cause of infectious mononucleosis, is found in more than 90% of the population. After infection, it lies dormant in B-cells. Studies [37,38,39,40] have shown that EBV infection is needed for MS to arise and high anti-EBV antibody titers are present before a diagnosis is even made. Moreover, MS patients show elevated CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses to EBV or impaired EBV-specific CD8 T-cell responses [41,42,43,44,45]. A phenomenon called T-cell exhaustion is proposed to be the result, i.e., a state of T-cell dysfunction that arises due to persistent active infection [46]. Although the exact mechanism by which EBV plays a role in MS is unknown, a number of possible avenues have been suggested: cross-reactivity between EBV and MBP (i.e., molecular mimicry) [47,48]; increased production of alpha-B-crystallin due to EBV [49], a small heatshock protein that plays a role in regulating neuroinflammation [50]; and finally, antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity [46].
Although mimicry is unlikely to be the unique mechanism for linking EBV and MS [51], it offers an interesting molecular level insight into how autoimmunity may be induced. Myelin basic protein or MBP is the primary protein found in the myelin sheath, responsible for the adhesion of the cytosolic side of lipid layers. It is encoded in a larger gene called gene of the oligodendrocyte lineage or golli. The protein is produced in a variety of sizes ranging from 14 kDa to 21.5 kDa due to alternative splicing, with the classic isoform being the 18.5 kDa one [52]. When an autoimmune response is triggered, MBP acts as an autoantigen, with anti-MBP autoantibodies readily detected in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of MS patients [53]. The number of these antibodies was found to increase steadily through the progressive stages of MS [54], with anti-MOG antibodies being steadily present throughout. However, extensive work suggests that the presence of anti-MOG antibodies leads to diseases distinct from MS [55].
MBP contains a seven amino acid residue sequence, rich in proline residues (Table 1). In the middle of this sequence is a threonine (Thr98), which can be phosphorylated during post-translational modification (PTM). In MS patients, less of this specific PTM has been found [56]. Interestingly, the latent membrane protein 2A (LMP2A) from EBV also has a number of proline rich segments [57,58] and sites where phosphorylation can occur [59] (Table 1). The role of these proline rich motifs and phosphorylation will be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections. LMP2A has been implicated in MS through T-cell exhaustion [60]. Support for the implication of LMP2A comes from studies by Aloisi et al. where LMP2A was detectable in the B-Cells obtained from the brains of MS patients at higher levels than the prevalent and important B-Cell marker CD19 [61,62]. Moreover, a treatment consisting of cytotoxic T-cells specific for a combination of EBV proteins, which includes LMP2A, has been applied to progressive MS patients and shown promising results [63].
In addition to LMP2A, Epstein–Barr virus nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1), EBNA2 and EBNA3 have all been found to potentially play a role in MS [64]. EBNA1 is expressed in EBV infected cells and plays an important role in maintaining genome regulation. In addition, EBNA1 was found to be present in individuals harboring latent EBV infections through PCR analysis. Evidence for a link to MS comes from the detection of high titers of IgG to EBNA-1 [65] or through EBNA-1/MBP cross-reactivity [47]. EBNA2 functions by upregulating host gene expression and recruiting transcription activation factors [8,66,67,68,69]. Its link to MS has been established through the observation that EBNA2 interacts with vitamin D receptor (VDR), resulting in deficiency which is known as a predisposing factor in MS. EBNA2 has also been found to play a role in resting B-cells [70]. Finally, EBNA3 was also found to interact with the VDR [64]. The exact role of the latter two proteins in MS remains to be further characterized, as they are infrequently detected in MS lesions [71].

2.2. Human Herpes Virus Type 6 (HHV-6)

Firstly, isolated from patients with lymphoproliferative and HIV/AIDS related diseases in the 1980s, HHV-6 has been shown to have a significant impact on a wide variety of neurological diseases, including multiple sclerosis, encephalitis, epilepsy and Alzheimer’s [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. Based on biological, immunological, epidemiological, and molecular properties, HHV-6 has been classified into two variants: HHV-6A and HHV-6B [80], which share more than 90% overall nucleotide sequence identity [81]. Aside from being able to modulate T-cell responses, the major contributor towards the pathogenicity of HHV-6 results from its efficacy in establishing life-long latency in the host cells [82]. Belonging in the same subfamily of betaherpesvirinae, HHV-6 and human cytomegalovirus (CMV) share similar latency features, including latency-associated transcriptional sequences [83,84,85].
Early reports established links between HHV-6 and MS through the observation of HHV-6 viral DNA in the brain and CSF of MS patients [86,87]. Further findings showed increased expression levels of HHV-6 in brain samples of MS patients relative to those of controls, as well as greater levels of mRNA and DNA in demyelinated plaques [88,89,90] and protein expression and viral mRNA in oligodendrocytes [72,88]. Furthermore, HHV-6 showed greater expression levels in acute lesions relative to that of chronic lesions as compared to EBV, VZV, HSV and CMV, possibly associating viral expression with earlier stages of MS lesion formation [88]. Additional studies demonstrated intranasal HHV-6 viral acquisition accelerated neuroinflammation in a nonhuman primate MS model [91].
At a molecular level, U24 from HHV-6 has been identified as possibly being implicated in MS because T-cell cross-reactivity between the proline rich region of myelin basic protein (Table 1) and the first thirteen residues in U24 was found [92,93,94]. Indeed, U24 shares a seven amino acid residue sequence identity with this important segment of MBP (Table 1) and includes both a PxxP and a PY motif. Cheng et al. showed in addition that the CD4+/CD8+ T-cell response was higher when U24 was combined with MBP or with an immunodominant peptide from EBV (which is homologous to the segment in MBP which precedes the PxxP motif) [95].
Other proteins from HHV-6 which have been implicated in MS include U94 [96,97], a protein that plays an important role in the viral life cycle. Anti-U94A immunoglobulins have been detected in serological data from MS patients [97]. Further evidence of implication arises from a study demonstrating that the expression of HHV-6 U94A impacts migration of human oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, both in vitro and in vivo [98]. These data suggest a link between latent viruses and MS. Interestingly, U94 contains a PxxP motif.

2.3. Cytomegalovirus (CMV)

CMV is also a member of the betaherpesvirinae subfamily, and is also known as betaherpesvirus 5 (HHV-5) in humans. It is a common virus and becomes latent. Its association with multiple sclerosis is not conclusive [99,100]. A number of studies suggest a much stronger link with the viruses discussed in the sections above [100,101].
Although no specific proteins have been identified, the CMV genome encodes for two proteins, UL25 and UL42, which possess proline rich segments (Table 1) and interact with SH3 domains and WW domains, respectively [102,103,104].

2.4. Other Viruses

Varicella Zoster Virus (VZV) is a pathogenic human herpes virus and the cause of the primary infection known as varicella or chicken pox. As other herpes viruses, it becomes latent, primarily in neurons [8,105]. Although some studies pointed to a role for VZV in MS [106,107], other studies suggest that the link is non-existent [108]. VZV has a protein containing a PY motif (Table 1), which interacts with the E3 ubiquitin ligase ITCH [103], and other proline-rich segments.
Herpes Simplex Virus type 1 (HSV-1) is a widespread human viral pathogen and affects epithelial cells during primary infection, establishing itself latently in ganglia, the olfactory bulb, the brainstem, or the temporal cortex [36]. HSV-1 is considered to be a risk factor for MS through its ability to mediate the activity of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) (vide infra). Other implications of HSV in MS come from antibody prevalence of HSV-1 and 2 in MS patients [8], though some studies call the importance of this into question [109]. UL56 from HSV-1 (Table 1) has two PY motifs, as well as PxxP motifs [103].
Approximately 8% of the human genome currently consists of a sequence that is retroviral in origin. This sequence encodes for human endogenous retroviruses or HERVs. The first report of the role HERVs may play in MS was over three decades ago, when the retrovirus multiple sclerosis-associated retroviruses (MSRV) were first detected in cell cultures [110]. More recent studies [111,112,113] suggest, however, the association of HERVs with MS comes from the activation of, e.g., HERV-H, HERV-K, and HERV-W through the presence of herpes viruses (e.g., EBV [114,115], VZV, HSV-1 and HHV-6A/B [115,116]). Interestingly the MSRV-Env protein, which is detected in MS brain lesions [117], has two PxxP motifs. Moreover, the HERV-W Env protein syncytin has the same two PxxP motifs and has been demonstrated to be present in the CNS of MS patients, as well as healthy individuals [118,119,120].
Finally, human polyomavirus 2 or JC virus (JCV) is another highly ubiquitous, latent virus, with associations to MS. It is linked to several brain diseases, particularly in immune-compromised patients [121], such as progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) [122]. The link between JCV, PML and MS is indirect: PML was first reported after the α4 integrin monoclonal antibody natalizumab, approved for treatment of multiple sclerosis, was widely used [123].
Overall, the common themes that emerge when examining the viral link to MS are that: (i) the viruses implicated are ubiquitous, and hence highly seropositive; (ii) they are latent; and (iii) many encode for proteins with proline-rich regions. The first two points imply that it is often extremely difficult to establish causality between the virus and disease [124,125]. Indeed, it has been suggested that strict criteria be used when linking ubiquitous transmissible agents that produce lifelong infections to any neurological diseases [124]. In light of understanding at a molecular level what the viral implication in MS might be, it would also be important to better understand whether proline-rich proteins are likely to play an important role.

3. Proline-Rich Proteins and Their Ligands

Proline is a unique amino acid, since its side chain is covalently connected to the backbone nitrogen in the peptide bond. This has the consequence that no amide proton is available for hydrogen bonding and thus stabilizing secondary structures. In a protein or peptide, the peptide bond between proline and the previous residue in the sequence adopts two possible conformations, namely cis or trans (Figure 1a). In proteins that contain segments with multiple prolines (i.e., a proline-rich or polyproline segment), two types of helical structures can be adopted (Figure 1b): (i) a type II helix (PPII helix) is formed when the x-Pro bond is trans, where x represents the amino acid preceding the proline; or (ii) a less common type I helix (PPI helix) with cis x-Pro bonds. The PPII left-handed helix is elongated, with a structure that is maintained without stabilizing hydrogen bonds.
Proline-rich segments are typically involved in protein–protein interactions because of the distinct structure of the polyproline helix. In a PPII helix, the lack on intramolecular hydrogen bonds (mentioned above) means that the carbonyl moieties point away from the helix long axis, instead of along the axis as in an α helix. Consequently, the carbonyls are free to easily participate in forming intermolecular hydrogen bonds [126]. In addition, the size and shape of the cyclic proline side chain are often an ideal fit for a hydrophobic pocket situated on a protein surface [127,128]. Indeed, proline-rich segments are ideal binding surfaces for binding SH3 and WW domains, discussed in the following subsections.
Viruses 14 00281 g001 550
Figure 1. x-proline bond isomers and polyproline type I and type II helices. (a) trans and cis isomers of x-Pro peptide bonds, where x is any residue preceding the proline. The bonds defining the geometries are highlighted in blue. (b) Side views of PPI and PPII helices, comprised of nine proline residues. The helices are oriented such that the top represents the N-terminus. The figure was generated using USCF Chimera [129]. Carbon atoms are shown in grey, nitrogen in blue and oxygen in red. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.
Figure 1. x-proline bond isomers and polyproline type I and type II helices. (a) trans and cis isomers of x-Pro peptide bonds, where x is any residue preceding the proline. The bonds defining the geometries are highlighted in blue. (b) Side views of PPI and PPII helices, comprised of nine proline residues. The helices are oriented such that the top represents the N-terminus. The figure was generated using USCF Chimera [129]. Carbon atoms are shown in grey, nitrogen in blue and oxygen in red. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.
Viruses 14 00281 g001

3.1. PxxP Motifs Bind to Src Homology 3 (SH3) Domains

SH3 domains are non-catalytic domains found in kinases and phospholipases [130] that play a role in substrate recognition. They play crucial roles in many biological processes, such as regulation of enzymes and increasing the local concentration or altering the subcellular localization of components of signalling pathways [130]. These domains are small, consisting of about 50–70 amino acids, and ubiquitous. They adopt a structure consisting primarily of β sheets and loops. They do not possess a distinct binding pocket [131], indicating some flexibility in binding and relatively moderate affinity [130]. Indeed, a ligand containing a PxxP motif can bind to a SH3 domain in two possible orientations [132]. The presence of charged side chains, positioned either before or after the core PxxP motif can enhance the binding affinity (e.g., RxxPxxP or PxxPxR motifs) [132,133,134,135].

3.2. PPxY (PY) Motifs Bind to WW Domains

WW domains have two highly conserved tryptophan residues found in the sequence, usually ca. 20–22 amino acids apart. These domains adopt one of the smallest known β-stranded folds. They are typically monomeric in solution, without any associated cofactors or disulphide bonds [136]. WW domains have a large number of binding partners, resulting in signalling complexes that are implicated in different cellular activities and diseases, such as gene transcription and ubiquitination, or Liddle’s syndrome, Huntington’s, cancer, etc. [128,137,138,139,140]. WW domains have been classified into four groups, each with specific preferred proline-rich ligands:
  • group 1 WW domains bind PPxY motifs;
  • group 2 WW domains bind PPLP motifs;
  • group 3 WW domains bind PPR motifs;
  • and group 4 prefer the p(S/T)P motif, where pS or pT indicates phospho-serine or phospho-threonine, respectively [141,142].

4. SH3 and WW Domains Implicated in MS

MS is a disease that leads to degradation of the protective myelin sheath, which is held together by the key components MBP and PLP, along with minor components MAG and MOG (Figure 2). These proteins or others that regulate the level of these proteins interact with SH3 and WW domains, in processes that affect myelination.

4.1. MBP/Fyn-SH3 Interactions

One of the important binding partners of MBP is Fyn tyrosine kinase, a protein with a unique role in myelination [143,144] and oligodendrocyte differentiation [145,146]. Expression levels of Fyn were found to be up-regulated during the initial stages of myelination [147]. Fyn is activated through the stimulation of cell surface receptors such as MAG. Fyn also promotes gene transcription of MBP, with the aid of other kinases and transcription factors. This stimulation of Fyn is stage and isoform specific [147,148]. In in vitro cellular experiments, Fyn and MBP were found to colocalize in oligodendrocytic cell lines. The interaction between Fyn and MBP occurs via the SH3 domain of Fyn tyrosine kinase (Fyn-SH3) and the PxxP motif in MBP [149,150,151]. When MBP is phosphorylated at Thr98, the affinity between MBP and Fyn-SH3 is lowered. This is due to the electrostatic repulsion between the negative surface charge on Fyn-SH3 domain, and the negatively charged ligand segment of PxxP in MBP [151].
Given the importance of MBP to maintaining the structure of myelin and given its regulation by essential signalling kinases such as Fyn, a depletion of Fyn would have a direct impact on the health of the myelin sheath and could lead to MS. Indeed, a number of studies have shown that a disruption in Fyn signalling pathways [152] can contribute to the development of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and MS [153,154,155]. It is conceivable that this depletion in Fyn levels could arise through the interaction of Fyn-SH3 with viral proteins, such as LMP2A from EBV [156] and U24 from HHV-6A [157], which both contain one or more PxxP motifs (Table 1). Although the binding affinity between Fyn-SH3 and U24 from HHV-6A was found to be weaker than that between MBP and Fyn-SH3 [158], the suggestion that a number of viruses that potentiate each other may be collectively involved in MS, e.g., HHV-6A, HHV-6B, Epstein–Barr virus (EBV), Varicella Zoster Virus (VZV) [159], may provide the high concentration of PxxP motifs required to deplete Fyn.

4.2. E3 Ubiquitin Ligases and Oligodendrocytes

Oligodendrocytes (Figure 2) play an important role in myelination and, as mentioned above, loss of functional oligodendroglial cells leads to MS [13]. Oligodendrocytes respond to neuronal signals by adjusting the relative levels of proteolipid protein (PLP), using endocytosis or exocytosis. Endosomes are key transport vehicles that are important in the endocytic pathway. It has been suggested that during myelin biogenesis, myelin proteins and lipids associate into preformed myelin elements and are transported through the secretory pathway. Once located at the plasma membrane, these preformed myelin elements coalesce to form the myelin sheath [152].
Neural precursor cell (NPC) expressed developmentally down-regulated protein 4 (Nedd4) is an E3 ubiquitin ligase that plays two important roles in oligodendrocytes [160]: (i) it is needed to regulate expression during oligodendrocyte development; and (ii) it is required for proper remyelination to occur in the case of white matter injury in MS patients. Nedd4 and its family member Nedd4L (Nedd4-like) regulate sodium ion channels, growth factor receptors, endocytic adaptors and other proteins [161]. Regulation occurs through the many WW domains present in Nedd4 or Nedd4L and the PY motifs present on the target.
Recent studies have shown that Nedd4 and Nedd4L activity can be hijacked by viral proteins. Specifically, HSV, human CMV, and EBV have Nedd4-binding proteins: UL56, UL42, and LMP2A, respectively [103]. The LMP2A/Nedd4 interaction via the PY motifs (Table 1) initiate ubiquitination-dependent proteasomal degradation of targeted cellular proteins and consequently allows EBV to become latent [156]. Likewise, HHV-6A, -6B, and -7 all encode for the protein U24, which has a PY motif (Table 1) [103,162]. Indeed, it has been shown that U24 from HHV-6A and -7 bind hNedd4L-WW3* preferentially, with a dissociation constant of 6.3 ± 0.3 and 1.22 ± 0.01 µM, respectively. This is the same WW domain that interacts strongly with LMP2A [57]. Upon phosphorylation of the threonine in U24 from HHV-6A, binding becomes even stronger (Kd = 758 ± 27 nM). This strong interaction may deplete Nedd4 and hence have an impact on oligodendrocyte function, but this remains to be shown experimentally. At present time, the exact role of phosphorylation of U24 is also unclear, except for the fact that it occurs in an analogous region in MBP and LMP2A (Table 1).

5. Phosphorylation

MBP has a number of functions: from adhering to oligodendrocytes and the cytosolic surfaces of the multilayered myelin sheath; to interacting with the cytoskeleton in oligodendrocytes, in cytosolic inclusions in myelin, and in compact myelin, via an association between MBP, actin, and tubulin [163]. Many of these functions are modulated by PTMs [52,143,164,165], with the end result typically being a decrease in the highly positive charge of MBP. The most abundant and least modified form of MBP in healthy adult myelin contains +19 charges at neutral pH. In the case of phosphorylation in particular, this PTM was found to decrease the ability of MBP to polymerize actin and to bundle actin filaments, without however affecting the dissociation constant of the MBP-actin complex [163]. Phosphorylation of MBP also leads to a reduced interaction with Fyn [151]. Finally, MBP phosphorylation decreases the interaction between MBP and lipids, making it difficult to organize lipids into the multilayers found in the myelin sheath [166].
LMP2A from EBV plays important roles in vivo for viral replication and persistency. It has an N-terminal domain, which possesses 2 PY motifs (Table 1) and a number of tyrosine residues that can be phosphorylated. Specifically, the phosphorylation of tyrosine enables interactions with Lyn and Syk kinases. As a result of this activation, Lyn and Syk go on to initiate activation of various pathways leading to cell proliferation, division, activation, survival, migration, and metastasis [156]. Interestingly, a number of serines in LPM2A are also phosphorylated, including S15 that is located in a PxxP motif [59,156], but the importance of this PTM to LMP2A function appears to be as of yet unknown.
Like most viral proteins, U24 is extensively post-translationally modified when expressed in eukaryotes. The size of U24 expressed in T-cells and observed on SDS-PAGE gels [167] was found to be two times larger than the expected molecular weight of 10kDa (based on amino acid sequence). The exact modifications were, however, not identified, but phosphorylation is certainly a possible PTM. Indeed, it has been shown that recombinantly expressed U24 from HHV-6A can be phosphorylated at Thr6 [12].
If viral proteins play a role in MS, it would be important to understand what the role of phosphorylation might be. It has been shown that MBP phosphorylation occurs immediately before and during myelinogenesis (Figure 3) in the developing nervous system [166]. Moreover, Yon et al. [168] showed that a reduction in phosphorylation at Thr95 was found in MS patients, a fact corroborated by a later study by the same research group [56]. Given these observations, one possible scenario could be that viral proteins perturb MBP phosphorylation levels, thereby resulting in less phosphorylated MBP. This reduction in phosphorylated MBP could potentially in turn strengthen the interactions between MBP and lipids, between MBP and Fyn and increase the ability of MBP to polymerize actin and to bundle actin filaments. Given the dynamic nature of myelinogenesis, it is plausible that preventing the formation of the multilayers needed for myelin sheath formation as a result of strong MBP/lipid interactions (Figure 3) would be detrimental. Likewise, since actin needs to disassemble for myelin wrapping [169], increased actin polymerization linked to decreased MBP phosphorylation could impact myelin sheath formation. Finally, a strong MBP/Fyn interaction could reduce the amount of free Fyn required in several cellular processes required for oligodendrocyte maturation and myelination and for axon–glial signal transduction [170]. Detailed experiments that test these hypotheses could provide important insights.

6. Conclusions

As outlined here, there is some evidence of the implication of viruses in MS. Specifically, EBV and HHV-6A could perhaps play more significant roles than the other viruses that have also been identified, given the more extensive studies performed to date. As both these viruses encode proteins that possess PxxP and PY motifs and residues that can be phosphorylated (Table 1), and because of their sequence similarity/identity with MBP, it is conceivable that the proteins LMP2A and U24 might play more significant roles in the disease than any of the other proteins listed in Table 1. U24 from HHV-6A (U24-6A) in particular has been shown to mimic MBP to some extent by interacting with Fyn-SH3 [157], to affect endocytic recycling by binding hNedd4L-WW3* domains [162], and finally to be phosphorylated at Thr6 [12]. In addition, it has been shown that phosphorylation of U24-6A helps to strengthen the interaction between pU24-6A and hNedd4L-WW3* domains.
In conclusion, multiple sclerosis is a multifactorial disease. We have demonstrated here that viruses, and more particularly some of the proline-rich proteins expressed by theses viruses, may play a role in disease triggering or disease progression. Much research remains to be carried out to obtain crucial molecular level knowledge of how these proteins work, thereby ensuring that the causes of MS will be better understood in the future.

Author Contributions

K.-S.P., Y.S. and S.K.S. wrote and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2017-03831) and from the University of British Columbia Faculty of Science (STAIR) are gratefully acknowledged.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data presented here is published.

Acknowledgments

We thank Walter R.P. Scott for carefully reading through the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Donati, D.; Jacobson, S. Viruses and multiple sclerosis. In Polymicrobial Diseases; Brogden, K.A., Guthmiller, J.M., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lublin, F.D.; Reingold, S.C. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: Results of an international survey. Neurology 1996, 46, 907–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ahn, J.J.; Abu-Rub, M.; Miller, R.H. B Cells in Neuroinflammation: New Perspectives and Mechanistic Insights. Cells 2021, 10, 1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moazami, F.; Lefevre-Utile, A.; Papaloukas, C.; Soumelis, V. Machine Learning Approaches in Study of Multiple Sclerosis Disease Through Magnetic Resonance Images. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 3205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lublin, F.D.; Coetzee, T.; Cohen, J.A.; Marrie, R.A.; Thompson, A.J. The 2013 clinical course descriptors for multiple sclerosis: A clarification. Neurology 2020, 94, 1088–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lassmann, H. Pathogenic mechanisms associated with different clinical courses of multiple sclerosis. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 3116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bar-Or, A.; Pender, M.P.; Khanna, R.; Steinman, L.; Hartung, H.P.; Maniar, T.; Croze, E.; Aftab, B.T.; Giovannoni, G.; Joshi, M.J. Epstein–Barr Virus in Multiple Sclerosis: Theory and Emerging Immunotherapies. Trends Mol. Med. 2020, 26, 296–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Tarlinton, R.E.; Martynova, E.; Rizvanov, A.A.; Khaiboullina, S.; Verma, S. Role of viruses in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. Viruses 2020, 12, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Brummer, T.; Ruck, T.; Meuth, S.G.; Zipp, F.; Bittner, S. Treatment approaches to patients with multiple sclerosis and coexisting autoimmune disorders. Ther. Adv. Vaccines 2021, 14, 17562864211035542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Jalkh, G.; Abi Nahed, R.; Macaron, G.; Rensel, M. Safety of newer disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. Vaccines 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Goldenberg, M.M. Multiple sclerosis review. Pharm. Ther. 2012, 37, 175–184. [Google Scholar]
  12. Tait, A.R.; Straus, S.K. Phosphorylation of U24 from Human Herpes Virus type 6 (HHV-6) and its potential role in mimicking myelin basic protein (MBP) in multiple sclerosis. FEBS Lett. 2008, 582, 2685–2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Gh Popescu, B.F.; Lucchinetti, C.F. Meningeal and cortical grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2012, 12, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Compston, A.; Coles, A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2008, 372, 1502–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rosati, G. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: An update. Neurol. Sci. 2001, 22, 117–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Abbaszadeh, S.; Tabary, M.; Aryannejad, A.; Abolhasani, R.; Araghi, F.; Khaheshi, I.; Azimi, A. Air pollution and multiple sclerosis: A comprehensive review. Neurol. Sci. 2021, 42, 4063–4072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rimkus, C.M.; Schoeps, V.A.; Boaventura, M.; Godoy, L.F.; Apostolos-Pereira, S.L.; Calich, A.L.; Callegaro, D.; Lucato, L.T.; Rovira, A.; Sastre-Garriga, J.; et al. Drug-related demyelinating syndromes: Understanding risk factors, pathophysiological mechanisms and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2021, 55, 103146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Obermeier, B.; Mentele, R.; Malotka, J.; Kellermann, J.; Kümpfel, T.; Wekerle, H.; Lottspeich, F.; Hohlfeld, R.; Dornmair, K. Matching of oligoclonal immunoglobulin transcriptomes and proteomes of cerebrospinal fluid in multiple sclerosis. Nat. Med. 2008, 14, 688–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Montalban, X.; Hauser, S.L.; Kappos, L.; Arnold, D.L.; Bar-Or, A.; Comi, G.; de Seze, J.; Giovannoni, G.; Hartung, H.-P.; Hemmer, B.; et al. Ocrelizumab versus placebo in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 376, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Holloman, J.P.; Axtell, R.C.; Monson, N.L.; Wu, G.F. The Role of B Cells in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Leibovitch, E.C.; Jacobson, S. Evidence linking HHV-6 with multiple sclerosis: An update. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2014, 9, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Wucherpfennig, K.W.; Strominger, J.L. Molecular mimicry in T cell-mediated autoimmunity: Viral peptides activate human T cell clones specific for myelin basic protein. Cell 1995, 80, 695–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Veroni, C.; Aloisi, F. The CD8 T Cell-Epstein-Barr Virus-B Cell Trialogue: A Central Issue in Multiple Sclerosis Pathogenesis. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sospedra, M.; Martin, R. Immunology of Multiple Sclerosis. Semin. Neurol. 2016, 36, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lincoln, M.R.; Montpetit, A.; Cader, M.Z.; Saarela, J.; Dyment, D.A.; Tiislar, M.; Ferretti, V.; Tienari, P.J.; Sadovnick, A.D.; Peltonen, L.; et al. A predominant role for the HLA class II region in the association of the MHC region with multiple sclerosis. Nat. Genet. 2005, 37, 1108–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Goris, A.; Pauwels, I.; Dubois, B. Progress in Multiple Sclerosis Genetics. Curr. Genom. 2012, 13, 646–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Sawcer, S.; Hellenthal, G.; Pirinen, M.; Spencer, C.C.A.; Patsopoulos, N.A.; Moutsianas, L.; Dilthey, A.; Su, Z.; Freeman, C.; Hunt, S.E.; et al. Genetic risk and a primary role for cell-mediated immune mechanisms in multiple sclerosis. Nature 2011, 476, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Patsopoulos, N.A.; Baranzini, S.E.; Santaniello, A.; Shoostari, P.; Cotsapas, C.; Wong, G.; Beecham, A.H.; James, T.; Replogle, J.; Vlachos, I.S.; et al. Multiple sclerosis genomic map implicates peripheral immune cells and microglia in susceptibility. Science 2019, 365, eaav7188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Beecham, A.H.; Patsopoulos, N.A.; Xifara, D.K.; Davis, M.F.; Kemppinen, A.; Cotsapas, C.; Shah, T.S.; Spencer, C.; Booth, D.; Goris, A.; et al. Analysis of immune-related loci identifies 48 new susceptibility variants for multiple sclerosis. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45, 1353–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maglione, A.; Zuccalà, M.; Tosi, M.; Clerico, M.; Rolla, S. Host genetics and gut microbiome: Perspectives for multiple sclerosis. Genes 2021, 12, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Waubant, E.; Lucas, R.; Mowry, E.; Graves, J.; Olsson, T.; Alfredsson, L.; Langer-Gould, A. Environmental and genetic risk factors for MS: An integrated review. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 2019, 6, 1905–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schwartz, K.L.; Richardson, S.E.; Ward, K.N.; Donaldson, C.; MacGregor, D.; Banwell, B.; Mahant, S.; Bitnun, A. Delayed Primary HHV-7 Infection and Neurologic Disease. Pediatrics 2014, 133, e1541-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Wei, W.; Ma, D.; Li, L.; Zhang, L. Progress in the Application of Drugs for the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fotheringham, J.; Jacobson, S. Human herpesvirus 6 and multiple sclerosis: Potential mechanisms for virus-induced disease. Herpes 2005, 12, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Christensen, T. Human herpesviruses in MS. Int. MS J. 2007, 14, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Bello-Morales, R.; Andreu, S.; Ripa, I.; López-Guerrero, J.A. Hsv-1 and endogenous retroviruses as risk factors in demyelination. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 5738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Levin, L.I.; Munger, K.L.; O’Reilly, E.J.; Falk, K.I.; Ascherio, A. Primary infection with the Epstein-Barr virus and risk of multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 2010, 67, 824–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Levin, L.I.; Munger, K.L.; Rubertone, M.V.; Peck, C.A.; Lennette, E.T.; Spiegelman, D.; Ascherio, A. Temporal relationship between elevation of Epstein-Barr virus antibody titers and initial onset of neurological symptoms in multiple sclerosis. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2005, 293, 2496–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Sundström, P.; Juto, P.; Wadell, G.; Hallmans, G.; Svenningsson, A.; Nyström, L.; Dillner, J.; Forsgren, L. An altered immune response to Epstein-Barr virus in multiple sclerosis: A prospective study. Neurology 2004, 62, 2277–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. DeLorenze, G.N.; Munger, K.L.; Lennette, E.T.; Orentreich, N.; Vogelman, J.H.; Ascherio, A. Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis: Evidence of association from a prospective study with long-term follow-up. Arch. Neurol. 2006, 63, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Höllsberg, P.; Hansen, H.J.; Haahr, S. Altered CD8+ T cell responses to selected Epstein-Barr virus immunodominant epitopes in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2003, 132, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lünemann, J.D.; Edwards, N.; Muraro, P.A.; Hayashi, S.; Cohen, J.I.; Münz, C.; Martin, R. Increased frequency and broadened specificity of latent EBV nuclear antigen-1-specific T cells in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2006, 129, 1493–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Jilek, S.; Schluep, M.; Meylan, P.; Vingerhoets, F.; Guignard, L.; Monney, A.; Kleeberg, J.; Le Goff, G.; Pantaleo, G.; Du Pasquier, R.A. Strong EBV-specific CD8+ T-cell response in patients with early multiple sclerosis. Brain 2008, 131, 1712–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Latham, L.B.; Lee, M.J.; Lincoln, J.A.; Ji, N.; Forsthuber, T.G.; Lindsey, J.W. Antivirus immune activity in multiple sclerosis correlates with MRI activity. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2016, 133, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Pender, M.P.; Csurhes, P.A.; Burrows, J.M.; Burrows, S.R. Defective T-cell control of Epstein-Barr virus infection in multiple sclerosis. Clin. Transl. Immunol. 2017, 6, e126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Serafini, B.; Rosicarelli, B.; Veroni, C.; Mazzola, G.A.; Aloisi, F. Epstein-Barr Virus-Specific CD8 T Cells Selectively Infiltrate the Brain in Multiple Sclerosis and Interact Locally with Virus-Infected Cells: Clue for a Virus-Driven Immunopathological Mechanism. J. Virol. 2019, 93, e00980-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Jog, N.R.; McClain, M.T.; Heinlen, L.D.; Gross, T.; Towner, R.; Guthridge, J.M.; Axtell, R.C.; Pardo, G.; Harley, J.B.; James, J.A. Epstein Barr Virus Nuclear Antigen 1 (EBNA-1) peptides recognized by adult multiple sclerosis patient sera induce neurologic symptoms in a murine model. J. Autoimmun. 2020, 106, 102332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lomakin, Y.; Arapidi, G.P.; Chernov, A.; Ziganshin, R.; Tcyganov, E.; Lyadova, I.; Butenko, I.O.; Osetrova, M.; Ponomarenko, N.; Telegin, G.; et al. Exposure to the Epstein-Barr viral antigen latent membrane protein 1 induces myelin-reactive antibodies in vivo. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Van Noort, J.M.; Bajramovic, J.J.; Plomp, A.C.; Van Stipdonk, M.J.B. Mistaken self, a novel model that links microbial infections with myelin-directed autoimmunity in multiple sclerosis. J. Neuroimmunol. 2000, 105, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Guo, Y.S.; Liang, P.Z.; Lu, S.Z.; Chen, R.; Yin, Y.Q.; Zhou, J.W. Extracellular αB-crystallin modulates the inflammatory responses. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2019, 508, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Geginat, J.; Paroni, M.; Pagani, M.; Galimberti, D.; De Francesco, R.; Scarpini, E.; Abrignani, S. The Enigmatic Role of Viruses in Multiple Sclerosis: Molecular Mimicry or Disturbed Immune Surveillance? Trends Immunol. 2017, 38, 498–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Harauz, G.; Boggs, J.M. Myelin management by the 18.5-kDa and 21.5-kDa classic myelin basic protein isoforms. J. Neurochem. 2013, 125, 334–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Panitch, H.S.; Hooper, C.J.; Johnson, K.P. CSF Antibody to Myelin Basic Protein. Arch. Neurol. 1980, 37, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Reindl, M.; Linington, C.; Brehm, U.; Egg, R.; Dilitz, E.; Deisenhammer, F.; Poewe, W.; Berger, T. Antibodies against the myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein and the myelin basic protein in multiple sclerosis and other neurological diseases: A comparative study. Brain 1999, 122, 2047–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Hegen, H.; Reindl, M. Recent developments in MOG-IgG associated neurological disorders. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 2020, 13, 1756286420945135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kim, J.K.; Mastronardi, F.G.; Wood, D.D.; Lubman, D.M.; Zand, R.; Moscarello, M.A. Multiple sclerosis: An important role for post-translational modifications of myelin basic protein in pathogenesis. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2003, 2, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Longnecker, R.; Merchant, M.; Brown, M.E.; Fruehling, S.; Bickford, J.O.; Ikeda, M.; Harty, R.N. WW- and SH3-domain interactions with epstein-barr virus LMP2A. Exp. Cell Res. 2000, 257, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Winberg, G.; Matskova, L.; Chen, F.; Plant, P.; Rotin, D.; Gish, G.; Ingham, R.; Ernberg, I.; Pawson, T. Latent Membrane Protein 2A of Epstein-Barr Virus Binds WW Domain E3 Protein-Ubiquitin Ligases That Ubiquitinate B-Cell Tyrosine Kinases. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000, 20, 8526–8535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Panousis, C.G.; Rowe, D.T. Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein 2 associates with and is a substrate for mitogen-activated protein kinase. J. Virol. 1997, 71, 4752–4760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Kearns, P.K.A.; Casey, H.A.; Leach, J.P. Hypothesis: Multiple sclerosis is caused by three-hits, strictly in order, in genetically susceptible persons. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2018, 24, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Aloisi, F.; Serafini, B.; Magliozzi, R.; Howell, O.W.; Reynolds, R. Detection of Epstein-Barr virus and B-cell follicles in the multiple sclerosis brain: What you find depends on how and where you look. Brain 2010, 133, e157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Wang, K.; Wei, G.; Liu, D. CD19: A biomarker for B cell development, lymphoma diagnosis and therapy. Exp. Hematol. Oncol. 2012, 1, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Pender, M.P.; Csurhes, P.A.; Smith, C.; Beagley, L.; Hooper, K.D.; Raj, M.; Coulthard, A.; Burrows, S.R.; Khanna, R. Epstein-Barr virus-specific adoptive immunotherapy for progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. J. 2014, 20, 1541–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Marcucci, S.B.; Obeidat, A.Z. EBNA1, EBNA2, and EBNA3 link Epstein-Barr virus and hypovitaminosis D in multiple sclerosis pathogenesis. J. Neuroimmunol. 2020, 339, 577116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Munger, K.L.; Levin, L.I.; O’Reilly, E.J.; Falk, K.I.; Ascherio, A. Anti-Epstein-Barr virus antibodies as serological markers of multiple sclerosis: A prospective study among United States military personnel. Mult. Scler. J. 2011, 17, 1185–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Kaiser, C.; Laux, G.; Eick, D.; Jochner, N.; Bornkamm, G.W.; Kempkes, B. The Proto-Oncogene c- myc Is a Direct Target Gene of Epstein-Barr Virus Nuclear Antigen 2. J. Virol. 1999, 73, 4481–4484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Nikitin, P.A.; Yan, C.M.; Forte, E.; Bocedi, A.; Tourigny, J.P.; White, R.E.; Allday, M.J.; Patel, A.; Dave, S.S.; Kim, W.; et al. An ATM/Chk2-mediated DNA damage-responsive signaling pathway suppresses Epstein-Barr virus transformation of primary human B cells. Cell Host Microbe 2010, 8, 510–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Cohen, J.I. A region of herpes simplex virus VP16 can substitute for a transforming domain of Epstein-Barr virus nuclear protein 2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1992, 89, 8030–8034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Wang, L.; Grossman, S.R.; Kieff, E. Epstein-Barr virus nuclear protein 2 interacts with p300, CBP, and PCAF histone acetyltransferases in activation of the LMP1 promoter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Zhao, B.; Zou, J.; Wang, H.; Johannsen, E.; Peng, C.W.; Quackenbush, J.; Mar, J.C.; Morton, C.C.; Freedman, M.L.; Blacklow, S.C.; et al. Epstein-Barr virus exploits intrinsic B-lymphocyte transcription programs to achieve immortal cell growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 14902–14907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Serafini, B.; Rosicarelli, B.; Franciotta, D.; Magliozzi, R.; Reynolds, R.; Cinque, P.; Andreoni, L.; Trivedi, P.; Salvetti, M.; Faggioni, A.; et al. Dysregulated Epstein-Barr virus infection in the multiple sclerosis brain. J. Exp. Med. 2007, 204, 2899–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Challoner, P.B.; Smith, K.T.; Parker, J.D.; MacLeod, D.L.; Coulter, S.N.; Rose, T.M.; Schultz, E.R.; Bennett, J.L.; Garber, R.L.; Chang, M. Plaque-associated expression of human herpesvirus 6 in multiple sclerosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92, 7440–7444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Caserta, M.T.; Hall, C.B.; Schnabel, K.; McIntyre, K.; Long, C.; Costanzo, M.; Dewhurst, S.; Insel, R.; Epstein, L.G. Neuroinvasion and persistence of human herpesvirus 6 in children. J. Infect. Dis. 1994, 170, 1586–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Sola, P.; Merelli, E.; Marasca, R.; Poggi, M.; Luppi, M.; Montorsi, M.; Torelli, G. Human herpesvirus 6 and multiple sclerosis: Survey of anti-HHV-6 antibodies by immunofluorescence analysis and of viral sequences by polymerase chain reaction. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 1993, 56, 917–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Salahuddin, S.Z.; Ablashi, D.V.; Markham, P.D.; Josephs, S.F.; Sturzenegger, S.; Kaplan, M.; Halligan, G.; Biberfeld, P.; Wong-Staal, F.; Kramarsky, B.; et al. Isolation of a new virus, HBLV, in patients with lymphoproliferative disorders. Science 1986, 234, 596–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Leibovitch, E.C.; Jacobson, S. Human Herpesvirus 6 as a Viral Trigger in Mesial Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. J. Infect. Dis. 2015, 212, 1011–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Theodore, W.H.; Leibovitch, E.; Billioux, B.J.; Inati, S.K.; Zaghloul, K.; Heiss, J.; Gaillard, W.D.; Jacobson, S. Human herpesvirus 6 and epilepsy. Epilepsia Open 2021, 6, 777–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Rizzo, R.; Bortolotti, D.; Gentili, V.; Rotola, A.; Bolzani, S.; Caselli, E.; Tola, M.R.; Di Luca, D. KIR2DS2/KIR2DL2/HLA-C1 Haplotype Is Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease: Implication for the Role of Herpesvirus Infections. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2019, 67, 1379–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Allnutt, M.A.; Johnson, K.; Bennett, D.A.; Connor, S.M.; Troncoso, J.C.; Pletnikova, O.; Albert, M.S.; Resnick, S.M.; Scholz, S.W.; De Jager, P.L.; et al. Human Herpesvirus 6 Detection in Alzheimer’s Disease Cases and Controls across Multiple Cohorts. Neuron 2020, 105, 1027–1035.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Schirmer, E.C.; Wyatt, L.S.; Yamanishi, K.; Rodriguez, W.J.; Frenkel, N. Differentiation between two distinct classes of viruses now classified as human herpesvirus 6. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 1991, 88, 5922–5926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Isegawa, Y.; Mukai, T.; Nakano, K.; Kagawa, M.; Chen, J.; Mori, Y.; Sunagawa, T.; Kawanishi, K.; Sashihara, J.; Hata, A.; et al. Comparison of the complete DNA sequences of human herpesvirus 6 variants A and B. J. Virol. 1999, 73, 8053–8063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Cohrs, R.J.; Gilden, D.H. Human herpesvirus latency. Brain Pathol. 2001, 11, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Slobedman, B.; Mocarski, E.S. Quantitative analysis of latent human cytomegalovirus. J. Virol. 1999, 73, 4806–4812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Kondo, K.; Kondo, T.; Okuno, T.; Takahashi, M.; Ymanishi, K. Latent human herpesvirus 6 infection of human monocytes/macrophages. J. Gen. Virol. 1991, 72, 1401–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Kondo, K.; Shimada, K.; Sashihara, J.; Tanaka-Taya, K.; Yamanishi, K. Identification of Human Herpesvirus 6 Latency-Associated Transcripts. J. Virol. 2002, 76, 4145–4151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Gordon, L.; McQuaid, S.; Cosby, S.L. Detection of herpes simplex virus (types 1 and 2) and human herpesvirus 6 DNA in human brain tissue by polymerase chain reaction. Clin. Diagn. Virol. 1996, 6, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Merelli, E.; Bedin, R.; Sola, P.; Barozzi, P.; Mancardi, G.L.; Ficarra, G.; Franchini, G. Human herpes virus 6 and human herpes virus 8 DNA sequences in brains of multiple sclerosis patients, normal adults and children. J. Neurol. 1997, 244, 450–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Cermelli, C.; Berti, R.; Soldan, S.S.; Mayne, M.; D’Ambrosia, J.M.; Ludwin, S.K.; Jacobson, S. High frequency of human herpesvirus 6 DNA in multiple sclerosis plaques isolated by laser microdissection. J. Infect. Dis. 2003, 187, 1377–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sanders, V.J.; Felisan, S.; Waddell, A.; Tourtellotte, W.W. Detection of Herpesviridae in postmortem multiple sclerosis brain tissue and controls by polymerase chain reaction. J. Neurovirol. 1996, 2, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Opsahl, M.L.; Kennedy, P.G. Early and late HHV-6 gene transcripts in multiple sclerosis lesions and normal appearing white matter. Brain 2005, 128, 516–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Leibovitch, E.C.; Caruso, B.; Ha, S.K.; Schindler, M.K.; Lee, N.J.; Luciano, N.J.; Billioux, B.J.; Guy, J.R.; Yen, C.; Sati, P.; et al. Herpesvirus trigger accelerates neuroinflammation in a nonhuman primate model of multiple sclerosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11292–11297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Tejada-Simon, M.V.; Zang, Y.C.Q.; Hong, J.; Rivera, V.M.; Zhang, J.Z. Cross-reactivity with myelin basic protein and human herpesvirus-6 in multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 2003, 53, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Venkatesan, A.; Johnson, R.T. Infections and multiple sclerosis. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 122, pp. 151–171. [Google Scholar]
  94. Owens, G.P.; Gilden, D.; Burgoon, M.P.; Yu, X.; Bennett, J.L. Viruses and multiple sclerosis. Neuroscientist 2011, 17, 659–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Cheng, W.; Ma, Y.; Gong, F.; Hu, C.; Qian, L.; Huang, Q.; Yu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Chen, S.; Liu, Z.; et al. Cross-reactivity of autoreactive T cells with MBP and viral antigens in patients with MS. Front. Biosci. 2012, 17, 1648–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Caselli, E.; D’Accolti, M.; Caccuri, F.; Soffritti, I.; Gentili, V.; Bortolotti, D.; Rotola, A.; Cassai, E.; Fiorentini, S.; Zani, A.; et al. The U94 Gene of Human Herpesvirus 6: A Narrative Review of Its Role and Potential Functions. Cells 2020, 9, 2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Ben-Fredj, N.; Ben-Selma, W.; Rotola, A.; Nefzi, F.; Benedetti, S.; Frih-Ayed, M.; Di Luca, D.; Aouni, M.; Caselli, E. Prevalence of human herpesvirus U94/REP antibodies and DNA in Tunisian multiple sclerosis patients. J. Neurovirol. 2013, 19, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Campbell, A.; Hogestyn, J.M.; Folts, C.J.; Lopez, B.; Pröschel, C.; Mock, D.; Mayer-Pröschel, M. Expression of the Human Herpesvirus 6A Latency-Associated Transcript U94A Disrupts Human Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Migration. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Thakolwiboon, S.; Zhao-Fleming, H.; Karukote, A.; Pachariyanon, P.; Williams, H.G.; Avila, M. Regional differences in the association of cytomegalovirus seropositivity and multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2020, 45, 102393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Langer-Gould, A.; Wu, J.; Lucas, R.; Smith, J.; Gonzales, E.; Amezcua, L.; Haraszti, S.; Chen, L.H.; Quach, H.; James, J.A.; et al. Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and multiple sclerosis susceptibility. Neurology 2017, 89, 1330–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Do Olival, G.S.; Lima, B.M.; Sumita, L.M.; Serafim, V.; Fink, M.C.; Nali, L.H.; Romano, C.M.; Thomaz, R.B.; Cavenaghi, V.B.; Tilbery, C.P.; et al. Multiple sclerosis and herpesvirus interaction. Arq. Neuropsiquiatr. 2013, 71, 727–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Nobre, L.; Nightingale, K.; Ravenhill, B.J.; Antrobus, R.; Soday, L.; Nichols, J.; Davies, J.; Seirafian, S.; Wang, E.C.Y.; Davison, A.J.; et al. Human cytomegalovirus interactome analysis identifies degradation hubs, domain associations and viral protein functions. eLife 2019, 8, e49894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Koshizuka, T.; Kobayashi, T.; Ishioka, K.; Suzutani, T. Herpesviruses possess conserved proteins for interaction with Nedd4 family ubiquitin E3 ligases. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Koshizuka, T.; Kondo, H.; Kato, H.; Takahashi, K. Human cytomegalovirus UL42 protein inhibits the degradation of glycoprotein B through inhibition of Nedd4 family ubiquitin E3 ligases. Microbiol. Immunol. 2021, 65, 472–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Kennedy, P.G.; Mogensen, T.H. Determinants of neurological syndromes caused by varicella zoster virus (VZV). J. Neurovirol. 2020, 26, 482–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Manouchehrinia, A.; Tanasescu, R.; Kareem, H.; Jerca, O.P.; Jabeen, F.; Shafei, R.; Breuer, J.; Neal, K.; Irving, W.; Constantinescu, C.S. Prevalence of a history of prior varicella/herpes zoster infection in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurovirol. 2017, 23, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Sotelo, J.; Ordoñez, G.; Pineda, B.; Flores, J. The participation of varicella zoster virus in relapses of multiple sclerosis. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2014, 119, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Burgoon, M.P.; Cohrs, R.J.; Bennett, J.L.; Anderson, S.W.; Ritchie, A.M.; Cepok, S.; Hemmer, B.; Gilden, D.; Owens, G.P. Varicella zoster virus is not a disease-relevant antigen in multiple sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 2009, 65, 474–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Czarnowska, A.; Kapica-Topczewska, K.; Zajkowska, O.; Świerzbińska, R.; Chorąży, M.; Tarasiuk, J.; Zajkowska, J.; Kochanowicz, J.; Kułakowska, A. Herpesviridae Seropositivity in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: First Polish Study. Eur. Neurol. 2018, 80, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Perron, H.; Geny, C.; Laurent, A.; Mouriquand, C.; Pellat, J.; Perret, J.; Seigneurin, J.M. Leptomeningeal cell line from multiple sclerosis with reverse transcriptase activity and viral particles. Res. Virol. 1989, 140, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Arneth, B. Up-to-date knowledge about the association between multiple sclerosis and the reactivation of human endogenous retrovirus infections. J. Neurol. 2018, 265, 1733–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Küry, P.; Nath, A.; Créange, A.; Dolei, A.; Marche, P.; Gold, J.; Giovannoni, G.; Hartung, H.P.; Perron, H. Human Endogenous Retroviruses in Neurological Diseases. Trends Mol. Med. 2018, 24, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Morandi, E.; Tanasescu, R.; Tarlinton, R.E.; Constantinescu, C.S.; Zhang, W.; Tench, C.; Gran, B. The association between human endogenous retroviruses and multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Dolei, A. The aliens inside us: HERV-W endogenous retroviruses and multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 2018, 24, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Jakhmola, S.; Upadhyay, A.; Jain, K.; Mishra, A.; Jha, H.C. Herpesviruses and the hidden links to Multiple Sclerosis neuropathology. J. Neuroimmunol. 2021, 358, 577636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Perron, H.; Bernard, C.; Bertrand, J.B.; Lang, A.B.; Popa, I.; Sanhadji, K.; Portoukalian, J. Endogenous retroviral genes, Herpesviruses and gender in Multiple Sclerosis. J. Neurol. Sci. 2009, 286, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Van Horssen, J.; Van Der Pol, S.; Nijland, P.; Amor, S.; Perron, H. Human endogenous retrovirus W in brain lesions: Rationale for targeted therapy in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2016, 8, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Johnston, J.B.; Silva, C.; Holden, J.; Warren, K.G.; Clark, A.W.; Power, C. Monocyte activation and differentiation augment human endogenous retrovirus expression: Implications for inflammatory brain diseases. Ann. Neurol. 2001, 50, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Perron, H.; Lazarini, F.; Ruprecht, K.; Péchoux-Longin, C.; Seilhean, D.; Sazdovitch, V.; Créange, A.; Battail-Poirot, N.; Sibaï, G.; Santoro, L.; et al. Human endogenous retrovirus (HERV)-W ENV and GAG proteins: Physiological expression in human brain and pathophysiological modulation in multiple sclerosis lesions. J. Neurovirol. 2005, 11, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Mameli, G.; Astone, V.; Arru, G.; Marconi, S.; Lovato, L.; Serra, C.; Sotgiu, S.; Bonetti, B.; Dolei, A. Brains and peripheral blood mononuclear cells of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients hyperexpress MS-associated retrovirus/HERV-W endogenous retrovirus, but not human herpesvirus 6. J. Gen. Virol. 2007, 88, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ayers, K.N.; Carey, S.N.; Lukacher, A.E. Understanding polyomavirus CNS disease—A perspective from mouse models. FEBS J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Cortese, I.; Reich, D.S.; Nath, A. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and the spectrum of JC virus-related disease. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2021, 17, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ho, P.R.; Koendgen, H.; Campbell, N.; Haddock, B.; Richman, S.; Chang, I. Risk of natalizumab-associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients with multiple sclerosis: A retrospective analysis of data from four clinical studies. Lancet Neurol. 2017, 16, 925–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Komaroff, A.L.; Pellett, P.E.; Jacobson, S. Human herpesviruses 6a and 6b in brain diseases: Association versus causation. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2021, 34, e00143-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Brütting, C.; Stangl, G.I.; Staege, M.S. Vitamin D, Epstein-Barr virus, and endogenous retroviruses in multiple sclerosis—facts and hypotheses. J. Integr. Neurosci. 2021, 20, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Zarrinpar, A.; Bhattacharyya, R.P.; Lim, W.A. The structure and function of proline recognition domains. Sci. STKE 2003, 2003, re8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Macias, M.J.; Wiesner, S.; Sudol, M. WW and SH3 domains, two different scaffolds to recognize proline-rich ligands. FEBS Lett. 2002, 513, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Shepley-McTaggart, A.; Fan, H.; Sudol, M.; Harty, R.N.; Cameron, C.E. Viruses go modular. J. Biol. Chem. 2020, 295, 4604–4616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Pettersen, E.F.; Goddard, T.D.; Huang, C.C.; Couch, G.S.; Greenblatt, D.M.; Meng, E.C.; Ferrin, T.E. UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25, 1605–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Mayer, B.J. SH3 domains: Complexity in moderation. J. Cell Sci. 2001, 114, 1253–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Musacchio, A. How SH3 domains recognize proline. Adv. Protein Chem. 2002, 61, 211–268. [Google Scholar]
  132. Feng, S.; Chen, J.K.; Yu, H.; Simon, J.A.; Schreiber, S.L. Two binding orientations for peptides to the Src SH3 domain: Development of a general model for SH3-ligand interactions. Science 1994, 266, 1241–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Feng, S.; Kasahara, C.; Rickles, R.J.; Schreiber, S.L. Specific interactions outside the proline-rich core of two classes of Src homology 3 ligands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92, 12408–12415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  134. Demers, J.P.; Mittermaier, A. Binding mechanism of an SH3 domain studied by NMR and ITC. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 4355–4367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Jia, C.Y.H.; Nie, J.; Wu, C.; Li, C.; Li, S.S.C. Novel Src homology 3 domain-binding motifs identified from proteomic screen of a pro-rich region. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2005, 4, 1155–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  136. Ibragimova, G.T.; Wade, R.C. Importance of explicit salt ions for protein stability in molecular dynamics simulation. Biophys. J. 1998, 74, 2906–2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Xin, H.; Poy, F.; Zhang, R.; Joachimiak, A.; Sudol, M.; Eck, M.J. Structure of a WW domain containing fragment of dystrophin in complex with β-dystroglycan. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2000, 7, 634–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Staub, O.; Abriel, H.; Plant, P.; Isiiikawa, T.; Kanelis, V.; Saleki, R.; Horisberger, J.D.; Schild, L.; Rotin, D. Regulation of the epithelial Na+ channel by Nedd4 and ubiquitination. Kidney Int. 2000, 57, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Passani, L.A.; Bedford, M.T.; Faber, P.W.; McGinnis, K.M.; Sharp, A.H.; Gusella, J.F.; Vonsattel, J.P.; MacDonald, M.E. Huntingtin’s WW domain partners in Huntington’s disease post-mortem brain fulfill genetic criteria for direct involvement in Huntington’s disease pathogenesis. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2000, 9, 2175–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Yin, Q.; Wyatt, C.J.; Han, T.; Smalley, K.S.M.; Wan, L. ITCH as a potential therapeutic target in human cancers. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2020, 67, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ilsley, J.L.; Sudol, M.; Winder, S.J. The WW domain: Linking cell signalling to the membrane cytoskeleton. Cell. Signal. 2002, 14, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hu, H.; Columbus, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, D.; Lian, L.; Yang, S.; Goodwin, J.; Luczak, C.; Carter, M.; Chen, L.; et al. A map of WW domain family interactions. Proteomics 2004, 4, 643–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Vassall, K.A.; Bamm, V.V.; Harauz, G. MyelStones: The executive roles of myelin basic protein in myelin assembly and destabilization in multiple sclerosis. Biochem. J. 2015, 472, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Guglietti, B.; Sivasankar, S.; Mustafa, S.; Corrigan, F.; Collins-Praino, L.E. Fyn Kinase Activity and Its Role in Neurodegenerative Disease Pathology: A Potential Universal Target? Mol. Neurobiol. 2021, 58, 5986–6005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Matrone, C.; Petrillo, F.; Nasso, R.; Ferretti, G. Fyn tyrosine kinase as harmonizing factor in neuronal functions and dysfunctions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 4444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Gonsior, C.; Binamé, F.; Frühbeis, C.; Bauer, N.M.; Hoch-Kraft, P.; Luhmann, H.J.; Trotter, J.; White, R. Oligodendroglial p130Cas is a target of Fyn kinase involved in process formation, cell migration and survival. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Lu, Z.; Ku, L.; Chen, Y.; Feng, Y. Developmental abnormalities of myelin basic protein expression in fyn knock-out brain reveal a role of fyn in posttranscriptional regulation. J. Biol. Chem. 2005, 280, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  148. Umemori, H.; Kadowaki, Y.; Hirosawa, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Hironaka, K.; Okano, H.; Yamamoto, T. Stimulation of myelin basic protein gene transcription by fyn tyrosine kinase for myelination. J. Neurosci. 1999, 19, 1393–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Polverini, E.; Rangaraj, G.; Libich, D.S.; Boggs, J.M.; Harauz, G. Binding of the proline-rich segment of myelin basic protein to SH3 domains: Spectroscopic, microarray, and modeling studies of ligand conformation and effects of posttranslational modifications. Biochemistry 2008, 47, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Smith, G.S.T.; Homchaudhuri, L.; Boggs, J.M.; Harauz, G. Classic 18.5- and 21.5-kDa myelin basic protein isoforms associate with cytoskeletal and SH3-domain proteins in the immortalized N19-oligodendroglial cell line stimulated by phorbol ester and IGF-1. Neurochem. Res. 2012, 37, 1277–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Smith, G.S.T.; De Avila, M.; Paez, P.M.; Spreuer, V.; Wills, M.K.B.; Jones, N.; Boggs, J.M.; Harauz, G. Proline substitutions and threonine pseudophosphorylation of the SH3 ligand of 18.5-kDa myelin basic protein decrease its affinity for the Fyn-SH3 domain and alter process development and protein localization in oligodendrocytes. J. Neurosci. Res. 2012, 90, 28–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. White, R.; Krämer-Albers, E.M. Axon-glia interaction and membrane traffic in myelin formation. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 2014, 7, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Matrone, C.; Iannuzzi, F.; Annunziato, L. The Y682ENPTY687 motif of APP: Progress and insights toward a targeted therapy for Alzheimer’s disease patients. Ageing Res. Rev. 2019, 52, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Franklin, R.J.M.; Ffrench-Constant, C. Remyelination in the CNS: From biology to therapy. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008, 9, 839–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Schenone, S.; Brullo, C.; Musumeci, F.; Biava, M.; Falchi, F.; Botta, M. Fyn Kinase in Brain Diseases and Cancer: The Search for Inhibitors. Curr. Med. Chem. 2011, 18, 2921–2942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Cen, O.; Longnecker, R. Latent membrane protein 2 (LMP2). In Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 391, pp. 151–180. [Google Scholar]
  157. Sang, Y.; Tait, A.R.; Scott, W.R.P.; Creagh, A.L.; Kumar, P.; Haynes, C.A.; Straus, S.K. Probing the interaction between U24 and the SH3 domain of Fyn tyrosine kinase. Biochemistry 2014, 53, 6092–6102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. De Avila, M.; Vassall, K.A.; Smith, G.S.T.; Bamm, V.V.; Harauz, G. The proline-rich region of 18.5 kDa myelin basic protein binds to the SH3-domain of Fyn tyrosine kinase with the aid of an upstream segment to form a dynamic complex in vitro. Biosci. Rep. 2014, 34, 775–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Kakalacheva, K.; Münz, C.; Lünemann, J.D. Viral triggers of multiple sclerosis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta—Mol. Basis Dis. 2011, 1812, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  160. Ding, X.; Jo, J.; Wang, C.Y.; Cristobal, C.D.; Zuo, Z.; Ye, Q.; Wirianto, M.; Lindeke-Myers, A.; Choi, J.M.; Mohila, C.A.; et al. The Daam2-VHL-Nedd4 axis governs developmental and regenerative oligodendrocyte differentiation. Genes Dev. 2020, 34, 1177–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Boase, N.; Kumar, S. NEDD4: The founding member of a family of ubiquitin-protein ligases. Gene 2015, 557, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Sang, Y.; Zhang, R.; Scott, W.R.P.; Creagh, A.L.; Haynes, C.A.; Straus, S.K. U24 from Roseolovirus interacts strongly with Nedd4 WW Domains. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 39776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Boggs, J.M.; Rangaraj, G.; Gao, W.; Heng, Y.M. Effect of phosphorylation of myelin basic protein by MAPK on its interactions with actin and actin binding to a lipid membrane in vitro. Biochemistry 2006, 45, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Vassall, K.A.; Bamm, V.V.; Jenkins, A.D.; Velte, C.J.; Kattnig, D.R.; Boggs, J.M.; Hinderberger, D.; Harauz, G. Substitutions mimicking deimination and phosphorylation of 18.5-kDa myelin basic protein exert local structural effects that subtly influence its global folding. Biochim. Biophys. Acta—Biomembr. 2016, 1858, 1262–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Harauz, G.; Musse, A.A. A tale of two citrullines—Structural and functional aspects of myelin basic protein deimination in health and disease. Neurochem. Res. 2007, 32, 137–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Atkins, C.M.; Yon, M.; Groome, N.P.; Sweatt, J.D. Regulation of myelin basic protein phosphorylation by mitogen-activated protein kinase during increased action potential firing in the hippocampus. J. Neurochem. 1999, 73, 1090–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Sullivan, B.M.; Coscoy, L. The U24 protein from human herpesvirus 6 and 7 affects endocytic recycling. J. Virol. 2010, 84, 1265–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  168. Yon, M.; Ackerley, C.A.; Mastronardi, F.G.; Groome, N.; Moscarello, M.A. Identification of a mitogen-activated protein kinase site in human myelin basic protein in situ. J. Neuroimmunol. 1996, 65, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Zuchero, J.B.; Fu, M.M.; Sloan, S.A.; Ibrahim, A.; Olson, A.; Zaremba, A.; Dugas, J.C.; Wienbar, S.; Caprariello, A.V.; Kantor, C.; et al. CNS Myelin Wrapping Is Driven by Actin Disassembly. Dev. Cell 2015, 34, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  170. Krämer-Albers, E.M.; White, R. From axon-glial signalling to myelination: The integrating role of oligodendroglial Fyn kinase. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2011, 68, 2003–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Chang, K.J.; Redmond, S.A.; Chan, J.R. Remodeling myelination: Implications for mechanisms of neural plasticity. Nat. Neurosci. 2016, 19, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Viruses 14 00281 g002 550
Figure 2. Key components of the myelin sheath, the protective layer around axons. Myelin basic protein (MBP) and proteolipid protein (PLP) are the most abundant proteins in CNS myelin. Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) and myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) are minor components. Oligodendrocytes, large glial cells found in the CNS, play an important role in myelin biogenesis. Oligodendrocyte precursor cells (not shown), which comprise a large population of proliferating cells in mature CNS, play a role in remyelination.
Figure 2. Key components of the myelin sheath, the protective layer around axons. Myelin basic protein (MBP) and proteolipid protein (PLP) are the most abundant proteins in CNS myelin. Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) and myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) are minor components. Oligodendrocytes, large glial cells found in the CNS, play an important role in myelin biogenesis. Oligodendrocyte precursor cells (not shown), which comprise a large population of proliferating cells in mature CNS, play a role in remyelination.
Viruses 14 00281 g002
Viruses 14 00281 g003 550
Figure 3. Hypothesis of how a decreased level of phosphorylation of MBP in MS patients could impact myelinogenesis in the CNS by oligodendrocytes. (a) Steps involved in myelinogenesis in the case of healthy patients. Adapted from Chang et al. [171]. (b) Hypothetical scenario in MS patients, where a decrease in MBP phosphorylation arises because of competition with viral proteins LMP2A from EBV and U24 from HHV-6. Unphosphorylated MBP should have stronger electrostatic interactions with lipids and Fyn and increase actin polymerization. As indicated in (b), stronger interactions between MBP and its many binding partners could impede with the dynamic processes that lead to myelin sheath formation.
Figure 3. Hypothesis of how a decreased level of phosphorylation of MBP in MS patients could impact myelinogenesis in the CNS by oligodendrocytes. (a) Steps involved in myelinogenesis in the case of healthy patients. Adapted from Chang et al. [171]. (b) Hypothetical scenario in MS patients, where a decrease in MBP phosphorylation arises because of competition with viral proteins LMP2A from EBV and U24 from HHV-6. Unphosphorylated MBP should have stronger electrostatic interactions with lipids and Fyn and increase actin polymerization. As indicated in (b), stronger interactions between MBP and its many binding partners could impede with the dynamic processes that lead to myelin sheath formation.
Viruses 14 00281 g003
Table
Table 1. Sequence alignment of a number of key segments from proteins which are implicated in MS. Amino acids with negatively charged side-chains are indicated in blue, whereas those with positive side-chains are shown in red. The PxxP motifs are indicated with dark grey shading. The PPxY motifs are shaded in light grey and boxed. Residues that are phosphorylated are shown in bold.
Table 1. Sequence alignment of a number of key segments from proteins which are implicated in MS. Amino acids with negatively charged side-chains are indicated in blue, whereas those with positive side-chains are shown in red. The PxxP motifs are indicated with dark grey shading. The PPxY motifs are shaded in light grey and boxed. Residues that are phosphorylated are shown in bold.
SourceProtein NameSegment Sequence
myelinMBP93–107IVTPRTPPPSQGKGR
EBVLMP2A10–105GAGPPSPGGDPDGDDG
GNNSQYPSASGSSGNT
PTPPNDEERESNEEPP
PPYEDPYWGNGDRHSD
YQPLGTQDQSLYLGLQ
HDGNDGLPPPPYSPRD
HHV-6AU241–15MDPPRTPPPSYSEVL
HHV-6BU241–15MDRPRTPPPSYSEVL
HHV-7U241–15M-THETPPPSYNDVML
CMVUL25623–638CRSPPPPLPPRDYPQR
UL4231–46STPPPPPPDCSPPPYR
VZVORF037–52AEAVADAPPPYRSRES
HSV-1UL5615–55AGNAFADPPPYDSLSG
RNEGPFVVIDLDTPTD
PPPPYSAG
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pi, K.-S.; Sang, Y.; Straus, S.K. Viral Proteins with PxxP and PY Motifs May Play a Role in Multiple Sclerosis. Viruses 2022, 14, 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14020281

AMA Style

Pi K-S, Sang Y, Straus SK. Viral Proteins with PxxP and PY Motifs May Play a Role in Multiple Sclerosis. Viruses. 2022; 14(2):281. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14020281

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pi, Keng-Shuo, Yurou Sang, and Suzana K. Straus. 2022. "Viral Proteins with PxxP and PY Motifs May Play a Role in Multiple Sclerosis" Viruses 14, no. 2: 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14020281

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop